HKSAR v. LAM YING LUN AND ANOTHER

DCCC 1001/2023

[2025] HKDC 1981

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1001 OF 2023

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  D1 and D2 were each convicted of one count of money laundering offence on 28 July 2025. Because of various reasons, the sentence was postponed to today, 24 October 2025. Yesterday, I received further correspondence from the prosecution and the mitigation letter of D1’s daughter from D1’s counsel.

Brief facts

2.  In gist, the offence was unearthed because of a phone scam operation whereby victims were lured to buy mooncake coupons before the Mid-Autumn Festival (the festival was on 27 September) in 2015.  The victims were asked to deposit monies into the bank account of Wealth Create and Leader Trading respectively.  It transpired that Wealth Create was registered under D1’s name and so was the bank account, A/C 1. Leader Trading and the company account, A/C 2, were registered in D2’s name. 

3.  The black monies that was involved in A/C 1 amounted to about $4,024,580 with 1,392 deposits, and $4,043,430 with 37 withdrawals between 2 June 2015 and 24 August 2015.

4.  The black monies related to A/C 2, between May 2015 and August 2015, amounted to $4,990,562 with 1,608 deposits, and $5,065,000 with 38 withdrawals.

Mitigation

D1 – Lam Ying-lun

5.  D1 is aged 45 and has been the sole breadwinner of the family.  He was married and has 3 daughters.  At the time of the offence in 2015, D1 was aged 35.  In the past 10 years, D1 has worked diligently to raise his family and has been a law-abiding citizen. 

6.  Mr So, counsel for D1, submitted that D1 was convicted “because he had been fooled or acted as the puppet of his elder brother.”  (para 6.1 of D1’s mitigation).  It was said D1 had no risk of re-offending. The offence lasted for only about 2.5 months.  The scheme of dealing with those black monies was unsophisticated.  D1 merely pre-signed the cheque book which was then passed to his elder brother.  D1 did not actively play a ring-leader role.  It was also submitted that “D1’s reliance on YK Lam whilst this Court considered not to be a defence, D1 respectfully submits it does constitute a powerful mitigating factor to the favour of D1.”(para 6.4 of D1’s mitigation).

7.  Mr So also said there were serious and/or inordinate delays (or time gap) between the time of the offence and the trial. “Given that D1 had once been returned bail money, his legitimate expectation of leaving the past behind vanished.” (para 7 of the mitigation).

8.  Mr So also relied on cases like SJ v Chan Kit Bing  [2001] 2 HKC 123, and SJ v Hui Sui Man [1999] 2 HKLRD 236, to say that a suspended sentence could be a viable option.

9.  Defence counsel forwarded the mitigation letter of D1’s daughter.

10.  As regards the costs issue, Mr So said the threshold is whether costs have been incurred as a result of unnecessary/improper act/omission of the defendant, and it is not usual to award costs against a convicted person unless there are special circumstances which have led to extraordinary expenses.

11.  Mr So further suggested that D1 was just exercising his right to contest the proceeding without abusing the court’s process.  D1 should not be penalised on costs, “just like he would not be required to pay costs in a failed voir dire when challenging admissibility of an alleged confession.” (para 19.1 of D1’s mitigation).

12.  Mr So added that the time spent on permanent stay of proceedings was just two hours of hearing and 30 minutes of ruling, hence, not too long.  This also suggests that D1 had not unnecessarily dragged on the said application.” (para 19.2 of the mitigation). As D1 was convicted by now, and would face a custodial sentence, be it immediate or suspended, that is already an adequate punishment.

13.  Lastly, Mr So informed the court that the prosecution agreed that they would not seek to recover costs against D1 for the permanent stay application.

D2 – Lee Yun-shek

14.  D2 is age 60 and was educated to Form 3.  He was a technician in the air-conditioning and freezing business.  His mother has been suffering from dementia since 2015.  She was also diagnosed with third stage of lung cancer.  Currently, his mother is staying in the elderly home. D2 got married in 2024.  He is the sole breadwinner of the family.  D2 had one previous record in 2013.  It was revealed that D2 was convicted of offences of trafficking in dangerous drugs in Thailand in May 1988 and was sentenced to life imprisonment there.  He was expatriated back to Hong Kong in March 2006, and was released from prison in November 2009.

15.  Defence counsel claimed that there was no evidence to suggest that D2 had any knowledge of the predicate offence, nor was there any evidence to suggest that D2 received any benefits from signing the cheques. “Taken to its highest, the prosecution’s case is simply that D2 ought to have taken caution in dealing with the account of Leader.” (para 15 of D2’s mitigation).

16.  D2 did not make any attempt to empty the remaining balance in A/C 2.  Instead, D2 withdrew the money and gave it to the police.  That shows D2’s cooperative attitude with the police. Counsel for D2 further said “there’s no indication D2 benefited from the event in any way.  D2’s culpability is clearly on the lowest end of a money laundering offence.” (para 16 of the mitigation). D2 also provided information about Chan Wing-fook to the police. 

17.  Counsel for D2 also raised the issue of delay. D2 faced an unduly long delay not attributable to him. 

18.  The mitigation letter from D2’s wife was tendered.

Sentence

D1 - Lam Ying-lun

19.  D1 is aged 45.  He is married with 3 daughters. D1 had a minor conviction of gambling back in August 2012. 

20.  Charge 1 involved HK$4 million-odd for a period of 2.5 months.  There is no sentencing guideline for offence of money laundering.  Nevertheless, the sentencing principles and considerations have been promulgated extensively in cases like HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, SJ v Wan Kwok-keung and HKSAR v Boma, etc.  These authorities have been listed in D1’s mitigation bundle. In HKSAR v Abayomi Bamidele Fayomi CACC 159/2009, the appellant was charged with 3 counts of money laundering involving $1.2 million.  The Court of Appeal agreed that the starting point of 3.5 years was appropriate. In HKSAR v Hain Nikhil [2007] 2 HKLRD 640, the appellants were charged with 2 counts of conspiracy to money laundering involving $3.9 million.  The Court of Appeal held that a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment was appropriate for the money laundering charges. These cases happened well before 2015. 

21.  There was no evidence to show that D1 has any knowledge of the predicate offences.  However, D1 did have a role to play by opening the company and the company bank account.  He also signed the blank cheques to facilitate the withdrawals of monies.

22.  D1’s daughter, now aged 20, in her mitigation letter asked for leniency saying that her father “did not do so maliciously. Rather, he committed the mistake under pressure, impulse and misjudgment.” (page 3 of the letter). She also said that the court should take into account of “(D1)’s remorse and his willingness to rehabilitate when passing sentence, and give (D1) a chance to restart his life.” However, she also spent one whole paragraph at page 2 of her letter to comment on some of the findings of this court.

23.  Mr So, counsel for D1, spent 7 paragraphs to say that there was a delay of 7 years and 11 months for the police to charge D1.  The long delay was not attributable to D1.  Defence counsel did not say the delay was malicious. 

24.  To this end, the prosecution has prepared a chronology of events starting from 15 August 2015 up until the delivery of verdict on 28 July 2025.

25.  I note that there is no enhancement of sentence under section 27 of Cap 455 filed by the prosecution as the offence was not prevalent in 2015.  These days, the enhancement of sentence will be in the range of 25% to 30%.

26.  Mr So mentioned about the possibility of a suspended sentence.  However, I cannot see there exists any exceptional circumstances in this case. Taking all factors into consideration and the monies involved were about 4 million, I would adopt a starting point of 3 years. I agree that there is a certain degree of delay in this case.  As such, I would reduce the sentence by 3 months.  In gist, I sentence D1 to 33 months’ imprisonment.

27.  As regards the costs implication relating to the application for permanent stay, I am surprised that the prosecution found it not necessary to apply for costs. Mr So said the proceedings did not last long (para 19.2 of D1’s mitigation); that no additional authorities were relied on by the prosecution; and that it is not justified to penalise D1 additionally.

28.  In my view, what D1’s counsel has submitted abovesaid means that he has totally missed the point and did not consider the issue professionally in the context of the present case.

29.  As I have ruled, the application was misconceived.  (note: defence counsel deliberately put the word “misconceived” in quote at para 19.1 of the mitigation).  I say nothing about this deliberate act. I ruled that the application was not justified, unnecessary and unmeritorious.  The application has to be fixed for formal hearing, and the court has to consider all the factors advanced by both parties.  Parties had to prepare written arguments.  They made oral submissions.  The court has to spend time to ponder the arguments and make a ruling.  That necessarily cost the court’s time and public resources. Even if the hearing for the application lasts only 10 minutes (note: the hearing was shortened because written submissions had been prepared and the court did not ask both counsel to read out the whole submission and elaborate their grounds), the court still has to consider all the important issues carefully and professionally. Mr So said just like a voir dire that was failed would not have any costs implications, an application for a permanent stay should be treated the same.  That is a totally wrong comparison or analogy in any professional perspective.

30.  That said, as the prosecution is prepared not to seek costs relating to the stay application, I have to re-consider the position and reluctantly decide not to award costs against D1 in respect of the permanent stay application.

D2 – Lee Yun-shek

31.  Charge 2 related to about HK$4.9 million-odd for a period of about 3.5 months. 

32.  D2 was born in Hong Kong and is aged 59.  He was sentenced to life imprisonment in Thailand in August 1989.  In Hong Kong, he had a total of 3 convictions since March 2013.

33.  D2’s wife said in her mitigation letter that D2 is a responsible person, whether at home or at work. And D2 is the breadwinner of the family.  She looked after her mother-in-law who is aged 87.

34.  I do consider all the mitigating points raised by D2’s counsel, namely, that there was no international elements; that the modus operandi was not sophisticated; that there was no knowledge of predicate offences; that the stress of D2 over the past decade; that he was cooperative to the police, and that there was no evidence that D2 did benefit.

35.  Obviously, D2 did not learn the bitter lesson from Thailand, and did not treasure his “new” life in Hong Kong when he got back to Hong Kong and was finally discharged from prison in November 2009.  He committed further offences in March 2013.

36.  Taking all factors into consideration, I adopt a starting point of 3 years.  There is a delay in the process, and to be consistent with D1, I reduce the sentence by 3 months.  I am also convinced that D2 did render certain assistance to the police, in particular, the withdrawal of the remaining balance in A/C 2. As such, I will further reduce the sentence by 2 months, and sentence D2 to 31 months’ imprisonment.