HKSAR v. CRANHAM GLENN WILLIAM JONATHON

DCCC 903/2017

[2018] HKDC 50

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 903 OF 2017

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

CHARGES

1.  Defendant was charged with three counts of conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.

PLEA

2.  Defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and admitted the facts.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

3.  The defendant, a UK passport holder, entered Hong Kong on 24 February 2013.  After staying for a few days, he left Hong Kong on 27 February 2013. 

4.  During his visit in Hong Kong, he acquired a shelf company and opened several bank accounts.  He then passed their controls to a person called “Ali”.  For the following nine months, there were numerous deposits in US dollars or Euro from around the globe in total of equivalent about to HK$21 million which were all remitted then to other jurisdictions in less than a day on average.

5.  At least one of these deposits was related to a reported email fraud taking place in Hong Kong.  Under caution, defendant denied knowledge to these transactions but admitted that he opened the accounts and passed all control of these accounts to “Ali” upon instruction and for a reward of £1,000. 

6.  He was arrested on 25 August 2017 when he re-entered Hong Kong.

Charge 1 - Account 1

7.  There were 29 deposits mainly through remittance from overseas countries by 19 different depositors.  The total amount was around US$1.9 million which was equivalent to about HK$15 million.

8.  There were 32 subsequent withdrawals mainly through remittance to recipients in other jurisdictions.

Charge 2 - Account 2

9.  There were two deposits through remittance from overseas countries.  The amount involved was about €48,000 which was equivalent to about HK$450,000. 

Charge 3 - Account 3

10.  With the similar patterns, there were 18 deposits and 30 withdrawals in the account.  The amount involved was about US$710,000 equivalent to about HK$5.5 million.

BACKGROUND OF THE DEFENDANT

11.  Defendant, a UK citizen, aged 45, single, formerly worked as a physical trainer in UK.  He has a clear record.

CONSIDERATION OF SENTENCE

12.  In sentencing him, I have considered the followings:-

(1) the facts of the case involving the amount of about HK$21 million;

(2) mitigation put forward and the mitigation letters submitted;

(3) defendant has a clear record.

13.  I have further considered the following authorities:-

(1) HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010]5 HKLRD 5345;

(2) HKSAR v Poon Lok Man CACC 171/2002;

(3) S for J v Wan Kwok Keung CACC 13/2010;

(4) HKSAR v Boma Amaso CACC 335/2010;

(5) HKSAR v Fan Shek Hung [2008] 1 HKCLRT 428;

(6) HKSAR v Chen Szu Ming CACC 270/2005.

14.  In the case of Hsu, the starting point adopted was 3 years’ imprisonment for the amount of around one to two million Hong Kong dollars. 

15.  In the case of Wan, the amount involved was about $14 million.  The starting point adopted after review was one of 45 months. 

16.  In Boma, it involved $10 million with the international dimension.  The overall starting point was 42 months’ imprisonment. 

17.  In the case of Fan, it involved $15 million, the starting point adopted was 5 years and 8 months. 

18.  In the case of Chen, it involved $17 million.  The starting point adopted was one of 5 years.

FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE

19.  The defendant came to Hong Kong to acquire a shelf company and also opened several bank accounts. 

20.  The transactions involved last for a period of nine months.

21.  The total amount involved was about HK$21 million.

22.  All the remittancies were made from various overseas countries.  Obviously, this case involved the international dimensions.  

SENTENCE

23.  I have considered the facts of the case, the mitigation put forward, background of the defendant and all the circumstances of the case.  I adopt the following starting points:-

Charge 1

24.  4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.  On guilty plea, it is reduced to 34 months’ imprisonment. 

Charge 2

25.  18 months’ imprisonment.  On guilty plea, it is reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment. 

Charge 3

26.  3 years and 3 months.  On guilty plea, it is reduced to 26 months’ imprisonment.

TOTALITY

27.  Having considered the totality principle, I make the following orders as to sentence:-

28.  The terms of imprisonment for Charge 1 and 2 are to be served concurrently, i.e, 34 months’ imprisonment. 

29.  Of the term for Charge 3, 6 months is to be served consecutively to the term of Charge 1 and 2. 

30.  The total sentence is one of 40 months’ imprisonment.