HKSAR v. WONG KAM HO

DCCC 1483/2024 & DCCC 1253/2025

(Heard together)

[2026] HKDC 889

IN DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1483 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

IN DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1253 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The two cases DCCC 1483/2024 and DCCC 1253/2025 involving the same defendant Wong Kam Ho are heard together before me, though not consolidated.

DCCC 1483/2024

2.  Under DCCC 1483/2024, Mr Wong faces a charge sheet consisting of two charges preferred in the alternative.

3.  Charge 1 is Conspiracy to defraud, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 159C(6)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.  Particulars are that Mr Wong, on 28 May 2024, in Hong Kong, conspired together with other person(s)  unknown to defraud Ho Yuet Lan, by dishonestly falsely representing to the said Ho Yuet Lan that the son-in-law of the said Ho Yuet Lan was in need of money, thereby inducing the said Ho Yuet Lan to part with a total cash sum of $50,000 Hong Kong currency.

4.  Charge 2 (alternative to Charge 1)  is Conspiracy to deal 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, and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance [, Cap 200].  Particulars are that Mr Wong, on 28 May 2024, in Hong Kong, conspired together with other person(s)  unknown to deal with property, namely a sum of $50,000 Hong Kong currency, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the said property, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence.

5.  Mr Wong pleaded not guilty to Charge 1 but guilty to Charge 2. Prosecution accepted the plea to Charge 2 as being satisfaction of the Charge Sheet.  Upon conviction of Mr Wong on Charge 2, I returned a not-guilty verdict on Charge 1.

DCCC 1253/2025

6.  Under DCCC 1253/2025, Mr Wong faces a charge sheet containing only one charge, namely, 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.

7.  Particulars are that Mr Wong, between 14 and 24 March 2023, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely, a total sum of $3,323,650 Hong Kong currency in the bank account with PAO Bank Limited (formerly known as Ping An OneConnect Bank (Hong Kong)  Limited), account number 7522000521310, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

8.  Mr Wong pleaded guilty to the sole charge under DCCC 1253/2025.

9.  I will deal with the facts of DCCC 1253/2025 first because they occurred first in time.

Facts under DCCC 1253/2025 admitted by Mr Wong

10.  Mr Wong was the sole account holder of an account with PAO Bank Limited (formerly known as Ping An OneConnect Bank (Hong Kong)  Limited), numbered 7522000521310 (“the PAOB Account”).  The PAOB Account was opened online by Mr Wong on 24 December 2022 using his HKID card.  During the process, Mr Wong took a selfie photo of himself for identity verification purpose.  In the opening mandate, Mr Wong was stated to be a construction worker.

11.  In late January 2023, PW1 Ms Lau was approached on Instagram by a fraudster who claimed to have ways to make easy money through investments.  PW1 fell for it so she opened an account on a bogus online cryptocurrency trading platform provided by the fraudster and was instructed to top up the account.

12.  PW1 remitted a total of $4,497,200 to various bank accounts in accordance with the fraudster’s directions.  One of the bank accounts was a Bank of East Asia account held by a Mainland resident (“BEA Account”).  To that account were remitted four separate sums totaling $1,297,000.

13.  When PW1 later sought to withdraw from the investment account, the fraudster kept asking her to remit more funds using different excuses. Suspecting she had been defrauded, PW1 reported the matter to the police.

14.  Upon investigation, it was revealed that shortly after the remittances from PW1 were received into the BEA Account, there were transfers from the BEA Account to the PAOB Account (4 transfers in total amounting to $745,000).

15.  According to the transaction records of the PAOB Account from 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2023:

(a)  The account had an opening balance of $0 on 1 January 2023;

(b)  Except for a deposit of $20 on 6 March 2023, the account was dormant from 1 January to 13 March 2023;

(c)  Between 14 and 24 March 2023, the account had a total of 31 deposits amounting to $3,323,650, and 43 withdrawals amounting to $3,323,600, with most deposits being withdrawn the same day they were made, resulting in mirror patterns and consistently low daily balances; and

(d)  The account had a closing balance of $70 on 24 March 2023; and it has remained dormant since then.

16.  On 25 March 2024, Mr Wong was arrested for Fraud and during a cautioned VRI conducted on the same day, he stated:

(a)  He was a co-owner of a decoration company and earned around $40,000 to $50,000 per month; and

(b)  He was not acquainted with PW1 and he had no knowledge of the transfers from the BEA Account to the PAOB Account.

17.  When the PAOB Account was opened and during the relevant period from 14 to 24 March 2023, Mr Wong was in Hong Kong.

18.  Mr Wong had not filed any tax returns for the 2018/19 to 2021/22 financial years.

19.  Mr Wong was not a director of any company in Hong Kong.

20.  Mr Wong now admits the Particulars of the charge.

Facts under DCCC 1483/2024 admitted by Mr Wong

21.  On 28 May 2024, at about 12:30 pm, Mdm Ho Yuet Lan (aged 72)  (PW2)  received a landline phone call from a caller (WP1)  claiming to be her son-in-law.  WP1 claimed he had been arrested by the Hong Kong police and he asked PW2 to pay a total of $50,000 bail money for him.  At about 2 pm the same day, WP1 called again telling PW2 to meet his friend at the entrance of Kwun Tong Mansion.

22.  At about 3 pm, PW2 met up with Mr Wong at the said entrance.  Mr Wong claimed he was sent by PW2’s son-in-law to collect money from her.

23.  PW2 said she did not know Mr Wong.  Mr Wong then walked away to make a phone call.  Soon, Mr Wong returned and handed over his phone to PW2.  It was WP1 at the other end.  WP1 told PW2 to hand over the money to Mr Wong.

24.  PW2 refused to do so and asked WP1 to instruct Mr Wong to write down his name, HKID card number and phone number.  WP1 ended the call.

25.  Soon, Mr Wong’s phone rang.  He walked away to answer the call.  When Mr Wong returned, he wrote down a HKID card number and a Chinese word on a piece of paper provided by PW2.

26.  During this time, police officers waiting near the entrance of Kwun Tong Mansion (because of an operation relating to a separate telephone deception case)  overheard the conversation between PW2 and Mr Wong.  The police intercepted PW2 and Mr Wong for separate enquiries.  Mr Wong was arrested for fraud.

27.  Under caution, Mr Wong said that it was his first attempt to collect money; that he only knew he had to collect $50,000 and he did not know what the money was for.  Mr Wong begged for a chance.

28.  Police seized the aforementioned piece of paper and confirmed that the HKID card number written thereon did not belong to Mr Wong.  The Chinese word written thereon was unclear.

29.  PW2 did not suffer any monetary loss.

30.  Next day, during a cautioned VRI, Mr Wong claimed that:

(a)  His renovation business experienced downturn and he became indebted;

(b)  He applied for a job on Facebook requiring renovation experience; he did not care if the job might be deception-related;

(c)  An unknown person contacted Mr Wong claiming the job opening had been filled; instead, there was an opening for a deliveryman;

(d)  Mr Wong accepted this new opening;

(e)  Upon instructions of that unknown person, Mr Wong bought a blue Samsung work phone and a SIM card for doing the job;

(f)  On 28 May 2024, he was instructed by the unknown person to go to Kwun Tong Mansion and look for an old lady; upon seeing PW2, he handed over his blue Samsung work phone as told by the unknown person;

(g)  PW2 refused to give out the money and insisted she would only do so if her son-in-law calls her directly;

(h)  Mr Wong took back his work phone and wanted to leave; but the unknown male told him that 5% of the $50,000 would be given to him as commission if he was able to complete the task;

(i)  The unknown person told Mr Wong that the money was for remitting to the Mainland for PW2’s son-in-law to conduct business;

(j)  PW2 required Mr Wong to write down his HKID card number and name on a piece of paper; he hesitated as he knew the money was very likely related to deception; and

(k)  Mr Wong wrote down a HKID card number provided by the unknown person instead.

31.  Mr Wong now admits the Particulars of the conspiracy to conduct money laundering charge.

Criminal record

32.  Mr Wong has 29 previous convictions none similar.

Antecedents

33.  Mr Wong is aged almost 39 (35 to 37 at the time of the offences), educated to F4 level.  Mr Wong had been a renovation worker, but unemployed at the time of arrest.

34.  Mr Wong was last discharged from prison in September 2022.

35.  Mr Wong is married but his wife lives in the Mainland.  Mr Wong lived in private housing in Yau Ma Tei.  His family consists of his mother (71), his elder brother and elder sister, and his son (17).

Mitigation

36.  Mr Foster Yim of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of Mr Wong.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

37.  Prior to his remand in this case, Mr Wong resided with his mother (70), his elder sister (43)  and his son (15).  Mr Wong’s wife resides in the Mainland.

38.  Mr Wong’s son and other relatives and friends are in court to give him support.

39.  Since 2023 and until his arrest, Mr Wong had been working as a casual renovation worker, earning approximately $20,000 per month.

40.  Mr Wong does not have a similar conviction before.

41.  The maximum penalty for the money laundering offence is a fine of $5 million and 14 years’ imprisonment.

42.  There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence because the facts vary from case to case.  However, in HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal set out a non-exhaustive list of considerations that should be taken into account when sentencing:

(a)  The nature of the predicate offence;

(b)  The state of the defendant’s knowledge;

(c)  Where the operation involved an international dimension, this would be a significant aggravating feature;

(d)  The sophistication of the offence, including the degree of planning;

(e)  Where the offence was committed by or on behalf of an organized criminal syndicate, this would be an aggravating feature;

(f)  Whether there was one transaction only or many and the length of time over which the offence was committed;

(g)  Whether the offender continued to launder funds after he had discovered the nature of the funds were proceeds of an offence or a serious offence was involved; and

(h)  The role of the offender and the acts performed by him.

43.  In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the Court of Appeal referred to HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, noting that the starting point is 3 years or so where the proceeds involved is between $1 million and $2 million; 4 years or so where it is between $3 million and $6 million; and could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.

44.  Mr Wong pleaded guilty timely and asks for the full 1/3 sentencing discount.

45.  In relation to the offence under DCCC 1483/2024, although Mr Wong said under caution he knew it was likely related to a deception case, there is no evidence that he was involved in any telephone scam.  Mr Wong was simply naïve and believed that his friend introduced him to an opportunity to earn money.

46.  With regard to the factors set out in Boma, the predicate crime of the offence in DCCC 1253/2025 was an ordinary online fraud.  It did not involve telephone deception, violence, drugs, or other serious organized crime.  More importantly, there is no evidence from the prosecution demonstrating that Mr Wong was aware of the specific details or nature of the predicate crime, nor is there any evidence linking Mr Wong to the planning or execution of the online fraud.  Mr Wong was merely alleged to be the holder of a bank account through which the proceeds passed.  Mr Yim submitted that Mr Wong’s role was limited, rather than that of a member of a criminal syndicate perpetrating the fraud.

47.  In respect of both of the offences, there is no international or cross-border element.  There is also no evidence to suggest that Mr Wong was part of any organized criminal syndicate.

48.  As to the duration of the offence, the period relevant to the offence under DCCC 1253/2025 was about 10 days.  This is relatively short when compared to other cases involving prolonged and large-scale operations.  Mr Yim submits that the present offence is not the most serious of its kind.

49.  In relation to the offence under DCCC 1253/2025, although the total amount involved is an important sentencing factor, there is no evidence that Mr Wong derived any substantial benefit from the offence.

50.  In relation to the offence under DCCC 1483/2024, while Mr Wong admitted that he would have received 5% of the $50,000 involved, he in fact received nothing.  There is no evidence that Mr Wong received any remuneration or share of the proceeds received by Mr Wong.

51.  Mr Yim has no objection to the prosecution furnishing the written statements pursuant to OSCO, Cap 455; nor does he oppose the prosecution’s request for sentence enhancement in respect of both charges.

52.  However, Mr Yim invites the court, when exercising the extent of enhancement, to exercise its discretion as to the level of enhancement.

53.  In relation to the offences under both DCCC 1483/2024 and DCCC 1253/2025, Mr Yim invites the court to take into account the statistics set out in the statement of CIP Li Yiu Nam.  According to Table A at para 16 of the statement, the total number of stooges arrested in 2025 was 5,355, as compared with the corresponding figure of 7,883 in 2024.  This represents a decrease of about 32.1%.  Further, according to Table B at para 20 of the statement, the total amount of reported monetary losses and the proceeds laundered locally through local stooge accounts in 2025 was $3,933.14 million, whereas the corresponding figure for 2024 was $4,466.39 million.  This represents a decrease of about 12%.  Mr Yim submits that these statistics demonstrate a downward trend.

54.  Although the two offences are entirely separate and distinct, Mr Yim invites the court to consider the principle of totality in determining a just and appropriate sentence that reflects Mr Wong’s overall criminality.

55.  In HKSAR v Chan Ching Ho [2000] 3 HKLRD 476, 482E-I, the Court of Appeal held:

“Here, the offences were entirely separate and distinct. There was no requirement on the part of the Judge, subject to the principles of totality, to have made any of the sentences to run concurrently unless it had been alleged, which it was not, that two of the offences had been committed in the course of what is often referred to as a “single transaction” ……

We have, therefore, concentrated upon the overall effect of the sentences the Judge imposed. No complaint is made that any of the individual sentences passed by the Judge was in itself manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. This Court is usually concerned with the overall sentence imposed in any event because if this cannot be criticised, we would be most unlikely to interfere with the individual sentences from which it stems.”

56.  In conclusion, Mr Yim asks the court to impose a lenient sentence.

57.  Mr Yim submitted on behalf of Mr Wong a total of 4 mitigation letters written in Chinese respectively by Mr Wong himself, his son, an assistant officer of a Christian organization, and Mr Wong’s ex-employer.  The contents generally are that Mr Wong committed the offences for economic reasons even after learning the skills of renovation in 2022; that he apologizes to the victim(s); that he is shameful and regretful for his mistakes; that he promises to be law-abiding in future; that the ex-employer promises to re-employ Mr Wong upon his release.  The letter writers asked for a chance for reform and a lenient sentence for Mr Wong so he may re-unite with his family early and contribute to society with his renovation skills.

Sentence

58.  Mr Wong committed the offence subject of DCCC 1483/2024 whilst on police bail for the police case which eventually became DCCC 1253/2025.  This is an aggravating factor.

59.  Regarding DCCC 1483/2024, the money to be laundered was $50,000; the predicate offence is a telephone deception offence; there is insufficient evidence to indicate Mr Wong knew (as opposed to suspected)  about the nature of the predicate offence; there was only one transaction; Mr Wong’s role was to be the conduit for transmitting the proceeds of the indictable offence for a 5% commission.

60.  I take into account the aforesaid aggravating factor and the fact this is a conspiracy charge rather than a one-handed money laundering offence.  For DCCC 1483/2024, I shall adopt a starting point of 2 ½ years’ imprisonment.

61.  Regarding DCCC 1253/2025, the money laundered was $3.3 million; the predicate offences were investment fraud offences; there is insufficient evidence to show Mr Wong knew about the nature of these offences; there were 31 deposits and 43 withdrawals over 11 days; Mr Wong’s role was that he was the operator of the money laundering account.

62.  For DCCC 1253/2025, I shall adopt 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment as the starting point.

63.  Mr Wong pleaded guilty to the charges in good time.  He shall be entitled to the customary 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

64.  Under DCCC 1483/2024, prosecution furnished a witness statement of CIP Tsang Lee dated 11 May 2026 and a witness statement of CIP Li Yiu Nam dated 12 May 2026, pursuant to section 27(2)  of OSCO, Cap 455.

65.  Under DCCC 1253/2025, prosecution furnished the same witness statement of CIP Li Yiu Nam dated 12 May 2026, pursuant to section 27(2)  of OSCO, Cap 455.

66.  Defence did not object to the court’s reception of these statements nor to the prosecutions’ associated requests for enhanced sentences based on them.

67.  CIP Tsang’s statement relates almost exclusively to prevalence of telephone deception offences and the harm caused by them.  However, under DCCC 1483/2024, Mr Wong was convicted not of a telephone deception offence; nor was there sufficient evidence to show that he knew the predicate offence from which the money he intended to launder  related to telephone deception.

68.  I therefore decline to rely on CIP Tsang’s statement under DCCC 1483/2024.

69.  As regards CIP Li’s statement under both DCCC 1483/2024 and DCCC 1253/2025, I have the following observations.

70.  According to Table A on page 5 of CIP Li’s statement, the total number (projected)  of stooges arrested (ie those who assisted in money laundering activities many of whom had either sold or lent their accounts at financial institutions)  in the whole of 2026 will be 5,920.  This will compare with the corresponding figure in 2025 of 5,355.  There will be a modest increase; and the absolute figure will remain high.

71.  I am satisfied that the use of stooges in money laundering activities and, by implication, the money laundering offences themselves (even if only suspected)  are still prevalent.

72.  The following observations on CIP Li’s statement applies only to the offence under DCCC 1253/2025.

73.  According to Table B on pages 6 and 7 of the statement, the amount (projected)  of reported monetary losses (including losses by overseas victims)  and proceeds laundered locally both involving the use of local stooge accounts in the whole of 2026 will come to $1,660.84M.  This compares with the corresponding figure in 2025 of $3,993.14M.  Although this will represent a drop of about 58% from 2025, the absolute figure is still a huge number.

74.  However, the nature and extent of harm to the community is not limited to the amount of reported losses and laundered proceeds.

75.  According to para 18 on pages 5-6 of the statement, the anti-money laundering regime in Hong Kong is hampered by the prevalence of stooges for money laundering activities as follows:-

(a)  The prevalence of stooge accounts (“PSA”)  interferes with the normal operation of the banking system, having a negative effect on the reputation of Hong Kong as a well-known international financial hub;

(b)  PSA forms multiple layers of “shields” concealing the identity of the masterminds behind, making it difficult, if not impossible, for police to identify the masterminds behind;

(c)  PSA substantially facilitates the commission of crimes and in turn leads to more crimes being committed, as the masterminds could easily get away from their criminal liability;

(d)  PSA makes money laundering easier, which allows culprits to make use of their ill-gotten gains to extend their sphere to engage in a wider range of illegal activities;

(e)  PSA means that law enforcement agencies have to put in more investigation efforts and resources; and

(f)  People with low income or less awareness of the consequences of selling their bank accounts are more likely to be lured by the culprits to take the risks of commission of crimes to surrender their accounts for monetary reward.

76.  From the figures I recited above from Table B, and from what PSA can do to the community, I am satisfied that the harm caused to the community by recent occurrences of money laundering offence is still substantial.

77.  In the premises, under DCCC 1483/2024, the “prevalence of money laundering offence” basis upon which the prosecution relies for request of enhanced sentence has been made out.  For DCCC 1253/2025, both bases[1] upon which the prosecution relies for request of enhanced sentence have been made out.  I feel confident that my power under section 27(11)  of OSCO, Cap 455, is engaged.

78.  In light of the state of the statistics, but also in light of the fact that the offence under DCCC 1483/2024 does not involve the use of stooge accounts, I deem a 10% enhancement sufficient to act as an additional deterrence against Mr Wong and like-minded persons for the sentence under DCCC 1483/2024.

79.  As for DCCC 1253/2025, where the offence involves the use of a stooge account, I deem a 20% enhancement of sentence sufficient to act as an additional deterrence against Mr Wong and like-minded persons.

80.  An an act of mercy, I will ignore any decimal places in the calculation of sentences in terms of months.

81.  The two offences of money laundering under the two cases are completely separate and distinct and ought in principle to attract consecutive sentences. However, I will take into account totality when determining the final sentence for Mr Wong.

(Mr Wong, please stand)

82.  Under DCCC 1483/2024, on Charge 2, the sentence is 22 months’ imprisonment.

83.  Under DCCC 1253/2025, the sentence is 40 months’ imprisonment.

84.  I order that 5 months of the sentence under DCCC 1483/2024 are to run consecutively to the sentence under DCCC 1253/2025, making a final sentence of 45 months’ imprisonment for Mr Wong.