HKSAR v. WONG SIU LAN

DCCC 977/2024

[2025] HKDC 2053

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 977 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  In respect of this indictment, the defendant has entered a plea of guilty to a single charge of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1)  and (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance Cap 455.

2.  Particulars of the offence set out the details of that offence.  The offence occurred between July 2020 and September 2020 in Hong Kong and the property particularised as $4,997,144 of Hong Kong currency.  It was placed into the bank account of the defendant and that money in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.

3.  The defendant has agreed the facts which show that the defendant herself opened the bank account in question on 28 February 2014.  At the time, she was a full-time sales person. She was the sole signatory of the account and had an ATM card provided with it.

4.  In the relevant financial fiscal year of 2019/2020, she was a salesperson with an annual income in the region of HK$288,000.  The money laundering activities on the account were discovered as a result of the payment of certain monies into that account between 28 July 2020 and 5 September 2020. 

5.  In total, there were a number of prosecution witnesses, 9 in total, who had been defrauded of money in respect of their applications for low interest loans to be approved.  They had paid monies, these 9 prosecution witnesses, into the defendant’s account between those dates in a total of $3,704,000 by way of cheques and transfers.

6.  There were other activities on the account showing payments between 18 August 2020 and 12 September 2020 of $1,293,144 in total in respect of 6 different transfers.  The transaction records of the account between the relevant dates, that is July and September 2020, are said to show money laundering mirror patterns.  There were a total of 20 deposits totalling $4,997,144 making a transfer of some PWs 1 to 9 and the transfers from unknown sources into the account, a total of just over $5,000,000 were immediately withdrawn from the account.

7.  The defendant herself was arrested on 1 June 2024 for obtaining property by deception.  The prosecution base the application of conviction on an inference to be drawn that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the property, namely the total sums particularised in the indictment, represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence.  That inference can be drawn and I have drawn it to convict the defendant.

8.  As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, she is a lady of, I think it is 53 years old now and of clear record.  This is, I think can be described as an unfortunate case, certainly a person of clear record involved here at not a young age, she is now 53 years old.  I am told she had opened the bank account a long time ago back in 2014 for the payment and receiving of salary.  Sometime, she says in March to April 2020, she became acquainted with a person called “Lam” who became her boyfriend at the time.  She understood him to be a subcontractor in the construction industry, knew he was in possession of large amounts of cash.  She gave him permission in July 2020 to deposit monies into her account and withdraw money from her account.  She also deposited and withdrew money for him.

9.  She says that the deposits and withdrawals of money stopped in September 2020 when the bank account was frozen.  She had a falling out with this man, Lam, and I am told that in mitigation that he has died from a heart attack in Hong Kong.

10.  The defendant was arrested in June 2023 and has been on bail since then up until December 2023 and she has been remanded, I understand, since mid-June 2024.

11.  Now to deal with the approach to sentencing.  I note before I deal with the approach to sentencing there is an application for enhancement of sentence in this case which is supported by a statement from Chief Inspector Li which is dated 27 November 2025.  The statement itself sets out the grounds upon which the enhancement of sentence can be made by the court.  I understand the application for enhancement is not opposed but my attention is drawn to the relative numbers of cases that have at least plateaued and slightly withdrawn over the course between January and October 2025 and it is submitted that gives the court grounds to have some discretion in the extent of enhancement that is to be imposed in respect of this sentence.

12.  Now turning to the approach to sentence, this can be found from a number of cases.  I have been referred to them by the defence.  There is of course the case of Secretary for Justice.  I will deal with it in this way.  In determining the appropriate sentence for money laundering in courts, consider guidelines established in previous cases.  In this case, there is no operative guideline but reference to be made to the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536, which in itself have no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds for an indictable offence but a number of factors can be taken into account when determining sentence.  For example, the amount of money involved, that is a major consideration, not necessarily about a benefit received by the defendant in the transaction.

13.  The degree of culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, support and encouragement offered to the commission of an indictable offence, so the defendant’s level of participation and the number of occasions which they are involved in the money laundering activities are relevant factors to be considered.  The offence of dealing with the proceeds from the indictable offence does not necessarily have any direct correlation with the indictable offence in question.  If the indictable offence can be identified, the court may take that into account in imposing the sentence for that indictable offence or at least taking it into consideration.

14.  If the case has an international element, that is in itself an aggravating factor.  There appears to be no suggestion that is the case in these circumstances.  Also to be considered at the length of time that the offence lasts for. 

15.  In the case of HKSAR v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the Court of Appeal considered that the sentence for money laundering should mainly reflect the amount of black money laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others.

16.  If there is information to prove the black money originated from a serious crime then that again would also be an aggravating factor. 

17.  They also make reference to the case of HKSAR v Boma Amaso at CACC 335/2010 which set out a total of eight separate factors and summarises the factors that have been set out in other cases and these are all matters that the court would have regard to when determining the operative sentence for the case.

18.  In Boma Amaso, the court said that the sentencing court should have regard to the role of the offender and the acts performed by them.  In this regard, the director of a laundering operational scheme should attract a greater sentence than the person engaged by him.  Sentence should be sufficient to deter those who might be prevailed upon by directing minds.  In the case of a person down the chain, the court will wish to have regard to whether the benefit has been received and if so the nature and size of the benefit but within the category of persons down the chain there will be gradations of culpability.  So, for example, a drug addict or petty crook is paid a small sum to open an account or hand over its operation to another with no more participation, no more knowledge to that it is going to be used as some sort of crime is much less culpable than an offender of a different sort not used in that way.

19.  Having regard to the defendant’s role in this case, it appears to be allied with the fact that this man who was given use of her account that she was in an intimate relationship with him at the time and that is and would be a mitigating factor in consideration of sentence. 

20.  Also in respect of the sentence of this defendant, I take into account letters of commendation that have been written about her, show her to be a lady of modest means with a charitable heart and good and true friends and it is unfortunate to see a lady of that nature involved in an offence of this nature and I consider it to be for her completely out of character.

21.  In respect of the appropriate starting point for sentence in this case, I have been referred by the defence to the case of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung, CAAR 13/2010, where a range of starting points can be called into a certain range of amounts of money laundered.  Based on that case where the range is between $3 million to $6 million, a starting point would be in the range of 4 years or so.  In this case, there is a total of some, almost some $5 million that have been laundered.

22.  I also bear in mind in respect of the defendant, in a letter to me she has taken full responsibility for this offence and has approached it in a mature and sensible frame of mind.

23.  Having regard to the actual sentence that will be imposed, I have determined that a starting point for sentence in this case should be 36 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant has pleaded guilty, she is entitled to a full one-third discount for that which will reduce her sentence to 24 months’ imprisonment.

24.  I have already said that the prosecution has applied under section 27(2)  of OSCO for an enhancement of sentence.  It is not opposed and there are grounds for such an enhancement set out in the statement of Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam.

25.  I consider an enhancement of sentence in the region of 20 per cent would be appropriate.  In this case that would mean an addition of 5 months’ imprisonment to the sentence I have already calculated. 

26.  That leaves a final sentence of 29 months’ imprisonment for this offence and that is the sentence of the court.