HKSAR v. NEILL JAMIE DAVID EDWARD WILLIAM

DCCC955/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 955 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  Jamie David Edward William Neill, You have been convicted on your own pleas of five charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence. The offences and the preparation for committing these offences spanned a period of a year from July 2010 until July 2011, during which time, I am told, that you visited Hong Kong on eleven occasions.

2.  Before October of 2010, which is the month that each of the offences is alleged to have commenced, when visiting Hong Kong you were undertaking preparations for committing these offences.

3.  In July and August 2010 you acquired the two companies that would open the bank accounts to receive the money you must have known would be the proceeds of offences committed overseas.  As the sole director and sole shareholder of the two companies, you changed the name of one company to Antek International Limited and the other to SGS Global Limited. 

4.  You then proceeded to open the three bank accounts in the name of Antek, one with DBS Bank and two with the Bank of China.  And you opened two bank accounts in the name of SGS Global Limited with the Standard Chartered Bank.  You were the sole signatory of those accounts.  Into those bank accounts, over the following year, came very large sums of money indeed, which were withdrawn shortly after they arrived.

5.  Each charge represents the proceeds of indictable offences which went through a particular bank account set up by you. 

6.  Through the Standard Chartered bank account, to which Charge 1 relates, went a total of US$732,943.43.  Two of the victims who were deceived into paying money into that account have been traced.  One was an American citizen living in the mainland and the other was a lady living in Ireland. 

7.  Both of them were induced to pay substantial sums of money into this account by someone who pretended to want to buy shares from them.  The money had been represented as being administration fees or taxes. 

8.  Through the Standard Chartered Bank, that is the subject of Charge 2, went a total of €156,107.08.  One of the victims who paid money into that account lives in Ireland, and he was persuaded to remit two sums totalling €17,632 into this account believing that he was sending them to an investment company he had found on the Internet for the purposes of investment.

9.  Through the DBS bank account, which is the subject of Charge 3, went a total of US$702,003.71 and €343,569.85.  That, on the basis of current exchange rate, would be worth a total of about HK$8.8 million.

10.  The same American citizen who paid money into the Standard Chartered Bank, which was the subject of Charge 1, was deceived into paying US$235,613 into this DBS account on the basis of the same pretence.  The German victim remitted €21,202 into the same account, having been led to believe that he was investing the money into an investment plan.

11.  Through the Bank of China account, to which Charge 4 relates, went a total of A$21,909.89, €752,761.25, £5,010 and US$844,645.96.  That, on the basis of current exchange rates, would be worth a total of approximately HK$14 million.  The same German citizen to whom I referred earlier paid £70,397 on the basis of the same pretence.  Through the Hong Kong dollar bank account with the Bank of China, to which Charge 5 relates, went a total of HK$301,236.

12.  There are a number of features that make these offences committed by you particularly serious.  This was a substantial and carefully planned money laundering operation.  You travelled to Hong Kong to acquire these two companies and set up the bank accounts.  Your role was central to this money laundering operation.  You set up the companies.  You opened the bank accounts.

13.  Even though, as you now allege, you may thereafter have given the particulars of the bank accounts to other so they could operate them through Internet banking, it is clear by virtue of the two US dollar withdrawals and the occasions you changed currencies that you still had personal involvement with the operation of these accounts.

14.  Your activities took place over a period of year, as I have said, between July 2010 and July 2011.  The sums involved were huge.  On the basis of current exchange rates, the amount passing through the accounts which you dealt with were a total of approximately HK$30 million. None of that money now remains in any of the accounts.  This was not simply part of a local operation.  You would have been aware that you were dealing with money that was a result of offences committed outside Hong Kong, overseas. From the Admitted Facts it is apparent that these offences were committed in at least 14 other countries.  

15.  In deciding the appropriate starting point I bear in mind that you are not charged with the indictable offences of which these sums were the proceeds, yet there can be no doubt that these frauds could not have been perpetrated unless there was someone like you to assist in the arrangements whereby the proceeds could be received and realised.

16.  I bear in mind that there is nothing to contradict your assertion that your only benefit from these offences was US$37,000.  I bear in mind that you have no previous convictions in Hong Kong.  That in itself is of very limited significance bearing in mind the fact that you are not a resident here.  But I also bear in mind there is nothing to contradict the assertion that has been made on your behalf that you have no previous convictions elsewhere.

17.  Taking into account all the circumstances I am satisfied that the following starting points are appropriate.  On Charge 5, 2½ years' imprisonment; on Charge 2, 3 years' imprisonment; on Charges 1 and 3, 4 years' imprisonment; and on Charge 4, 4½ years' imprisonment. 

18.  You have pleaded guilty and are entitled to the usual discount of one-third. 

19.  The sentences I pass on each charge are therefore as follows: on Charge 1, 2 years 8 months’ imprisonment; on Charge 2, 2 years’ imprisonment; on Charge 3, 2 years 8 months’ imprisonment; on Charge 4, 3 years’ imprisonment; on Charge 5, 20 months’ imprisonment.  Bearing in mind the total criminality involved I am of the view that the appropriate overall starting point of 5½ years' imprisonment would be appropriate, which, after discount for your pleas of guilty would result in an overall sentence of 3 years 8 months’ imprisonment.

20.  I accordingly order that 2 months of the sentence on Charge 1 run consecutively to the sentence on Charge 4, I order that 2 months of the sentence on Charge 2 run consecutively to the sentences on Charges 1 and 4, I order that 2 months of the sentences on Charge 3 runs consecutively to the sentences on Charges 1, 2 and 4, and I order that 2 months of the sentence on Charge 5 runs consecutively to the sentences on Charges 1, 2, 3 and 4. 

21.  That makes a total of 3 years 8 months’ imprisonment.