HKSAR v. JOBANPREET SINGH

DCCC 944/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 944 OF 2012

----------------------

----------------------

---------------------

Reasons for Sentence

---------------------

1.  The defendant was convicted after trial of two charges of money laundering.

2.  The defendant, in order to commit both these offences at the instruction of a friend, opened a trading company.  

3.  Once that trading company was opened, two bank accounts were opened in that company’s name:  the first was at the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited and then some months later a second account at the Bank of Communications Company Limited.  The defendant was the sole signatory of both these accounts. 

4.  Remittances were made to these accounts, the monies coming from e-mail frauds.  Victims were tricked into depositing money into these accounts. 

5.  Once deposits were made, the money was or almost immediately withdrawn by the defendant, either as a result of instructions from his friend or in the company of his friend.

6.  The 1st charge involves an amount of $529,000-odd and that amount was withdrawn on two occasions.  That account at the HSBC bank was closed not long after due to inactivity.

7.  The 2nd charge involved an amount of $1.8-million-odd and there were in total four withdrawals made by the defendant. 

8.  A staff member at the Bank of Communications became suspicious and on 29 March, when the defendant came again to make a withdrawal, the bank notified the police.  The defendant was arrested at the bank.

9.  Under caution, the defendant told the police that he was recruited by a Chinese man to open these bank accounts for a reward.

10.  The defendant in his evidence explained that it was not a Chinese man but an Indian man called Rommy who asked him to open this trading company and both bank accounts.  He explained that he believed the man was a businessman and needed his help to collect some money he was owed.

11.  I do not intend to repeat the facts of the case.  I gave full reasons in my verdict. 

12.  I find that there was no evidence the defendant directly participated in the e-mail frauds.  I did not find any evidence that he knew at the material times that he was dealing with the proceeds of an indictable offence.

13.  I did find ample evidence that he had reasonable grounds to believe the property he was dealing with represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.  I found he turned a blind eye in return for a financial reward.

14.  Defence counsel has done his utmost to mitigate on behalf of the defendant.

15.  At the time of the offences, the defendant was 18 years old.  He is now 19.  He came to Hong Kong from India in 2008.  He joined his family, including his father and stepmother and siblings, here.  He previously had a clear record.

16.  I did adjourn this case until today for two reports.  He is deemed unsuitable for a detention centre order and, because of his status in Hong Kong, he is not appropriate to consider for a training centre order.

17.  The defendant, after he arrived in Hong Kong, did not go back to school.  He worked in several jobs, mainly labour-intensive jobs. I accept the defendant is not a highly-educated man and I accept that he was led by the nose by someone he thought he knew as a friend.

18.  I do note that he was rewarded a total of approximately $10,000 for his role.

19.  In considering sentence, a conduct of a trial can be relevant and, in this case, the defendant agreed the prosecution’s case in its entirety.

20.  As I said, the issue was only whether there was reasonable grounds for the defendant to believe he was dealing with property that was the proceeds of an indictable offence and I found that he did turn a blind eye to obvious and glaring reasonable grounds.

21.  This offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years’ imprisonment and the courts view this offence seriously.

22.  It has been said time and time again that without the assistance of money launderers it would be more difficult for criminals to move or hide ill-gotten gains.  Money launderers assist criminals to launder money, indirectly encouraging them in criminal activity. 

23.  The courts have taken a robust view in sentencing to reflect the seriousness of this offence.  There will always be a deterrent element in sentencing this offence and, for various reasons, a suspended sentence is not appropriate in this case.

24.  Having said that, there are no tariffs or guidelines for this offence.  Each case is decided on its own facts and relevant facts vary too much from case to case to give guidelines.

25.  That is not to say there are no relevant factors that the court can consider in arriving at an appropriate starting point:

(1) obviously, the amount of money involved is significant and relevant;

(2) the number of transactions and the length of time is relevant;

(3) the benefit derived by the defendant is also relevant (in this case, about HK$10,000);

(4) I would also look at the degree of sophistication of the laundering scheme. Here, it is not particularly high; and

(5) lastly, what is also relevant is the defendant’s role and, as I found, he turned a blind eye as opposed to knowing he was dealing with the proceeds of an indictable offence.

26.  I have considered all of facts of this case, mitigation put forward on his behalf, the role that he played at another’s request, the conduct of the trial, his age and previous clear record as well as the other relevant factors I have just referred to.

27.  For Charge 1, I find a starting point of 18 months’ imprisonment appropriate.

28.  For Charge 2, I find a starting point of 2 years appropriate.

29.  I see no reason for any discount for these starting points.

30.  Accordingly,

(1) for Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment;

(2) for Charge 2, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

31.  I will order both sentences be served concurrently.  That is a total of 2 years’ imprisonment.