HKSAR v. LIN MENG CHANG AND ANOTHER

DCCC1229/2008

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1229 OF 2008

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

1.  Defendant 1, you have pleaded guilty to one offence of Possession of a false travel document and a re-entry permit contrary to Section 42(2)(c)(i) and 44(2)(4) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115 and to four offences of Conspiring to deal with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, each contrary to Section 25 of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455, and Sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. 

2.  Defendant 2, you pleaded guilty to the 5th charge which was a joint charge with D1 and others.  You each admitted the brief facts and you were each convicted.

3.  Very briefly the facts were as follows.  I deal first with victim 1.  Diana Ko Li Eng, PW1 resides in Singapore.  On 24 April 2008, she received a phone call from a female informing her that she had won US$50,000 in a lottery.  She was given a website to check.  PW1 initially said she was not interested and the prize could go to someone else.  However, she was persuaded to accept the prize.  She was required to pay advanced fees refundable upon the collection of her winnings.  Each time she deposited money into different bank accounts, the prize was withheld for various reasons.  On 6 May 2008, she was asked to bet the US$50,000 on a further lottery.

4.  She was then informed that she had won SG$2 million, Advance fees were again collected.  PW1 remitted money on nine occasions into accounts in Singapore and Hong Kong.  PW1 never received any winnings.  She was defrauded of some SG$302,550 which is approximately HK$1,712,010.78. 

5.  Victim 2.  Lu Bin, PW2, resides in Japan.  In March 2008, she met a person called Kwok Chak-ping via the Internet.  He claimed to work for the Hong Kong Jockey Club.  On 18 May he told her of a new betting plan of the Hong Kong Jockey Club.  This was a lottery with part of the proceeds going to rescue operations for the earthquake in Sichuan.  He requested her to invest HK$30,000 to HK$200,000.  He also gave her the name and phone number of a colleague, Cheung Kung-wai to check.  She did so check.  On 21 May 2008 she remitted HK$50,000 to a Bank of China Account in the name of Mi Xiaoyan, D2.  She also instructed her colleague, Li Peng who was Shanghai to remit HK$100,000 to that account. 

6.  On 24 May 2008, Kwok phone her to tell her she had won HK$45 million and she was requested to remit HK$450,000 to claim the money.  She reported the matter to the police in Japan.  In July 2008 she came to Hong Kong and reported the matters to police here.  On 26 May 2008, police received a complaint by email from Canada that a lady there had been defrauded and that she was told she had won a lottery prize on HK$880,000.  She had remitted US$4,500 to a Standard Charter Account in the name of D2. 

7.  At about 10.45 am on 4 July last, both went to the Standard Charter Bank in Nathan Road, Tsim Sha Tsui and withdrew $36,374.70 from D2’s bank account.  The police were called.  At 11.32 am you were both arrested and taken to Tsim Sha Tsui police station.

8.  Each of you were searched and found to be in possession of various bankcards in various names and of various banks.  You were then each of you taken to your home address which is a guest house in Chung King Mansions.  Again various incriminating bank documents were found as well as travel documents of you, D1.  Two travel documents bearing your photograph, D1, and your date of birth were in the name of someone else, namely, Chang Shih-chen. 

9.  Under caution, you, D1, claimed that the bankcards and forged travel documents had been sent to you by your boss one, Ah Yuen.  You said that you received $500 for opening each bank account.  In addition you received 1 per cent of all the money you handled.  You claimed that Ah Yuen paid the rent of your room. 

10.  D2, you said under caution that you opened the bank accounts at the request D1, who was your boyfriend.  You said that these accounts were for business purposes. 

11.  Interviewed under caution you each confirmed what you had said at the end of the search.  There is an immensely helpful table in the brief facts with details of the money laundering of each of you. 

12.  Both of you are of clear record in Hong Kong.  On behalf of you D1, Mr Gordon Wong entered mitigation.  I am told you are 56 years of age and a Taiwanese citizen.  You are a divorcee with an adult son and daughter.  Your plea of guilty was emphasised and it is said that you are not the mastermind of the scheme.  You had fully cooperated with the police after your arrest.  To date you have spent approximately nine months in custody. 

13.  The total scheme involved something in the order HK20 million.  Letters of support were submitted.  I was told that you had an ailing and aged mother to care for. 

14.  On behalf of you, D2, Mr Leo Chan entered mitigation.  He emphasised your plea of guilty.  He told me that you are a young lady of 22, single and from a poor rural area of Mainland China.  You come from a farming family.  I was told of the plight of your brother who had written to court on your behalf.  It seems that the loss of your income to the family must perforce lead to him being unable to continue with his studies at University.  He recognised, quite fairly that you had opportunities denied to you and that he had been able to go to university whereas you had had to work in a hotel to support the family finances.  He stressed that you had acted very much under the influence of D1 who was your boyfriend, a much older man and you acted out of naivety and love.  Whilst being suspicious of the activities and you knew that there was something illegal about them, you did know the specifics of what had occurred.  I was told that you had obtained absolutely no financial benefit from your part. 

15.  Partial compensation of HK$300,000 repaid from the bank account to PW1.

16.  I turn now to the sentences.  Clearly, within the context of the charges you, D1, played the major role.  You are the older partner much more deeply involved and facing five charges. 

17.  I accept that you, D2, acted out of naivety and love under the influence of D1.  I note that both of you have clear records.  I note both of you have been cooperative with the police since your arrests.  You both pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.  Partial compensation has been rendered but that is but a small percentage of the total sum involved. 

18.  The schemes themselves were extremely sophisticated, well executed, and designed to play on the gullibility of the victims.  In these type of cases where the offences themselves are those of dealing with the proceeds of indictable offences or conspiracy to do so, as we have here, it is very difficult to gauge the depth of involvement of each defendant.  However, you are, and here you both admit to being part of the overall scheme.  The schemes, or scams in common parlance, would not operate without the use of these accounts, therefore substantial and immediate prison sentences are called for.

19.  I am prepared to say, and, in fact, do say that D1, you were much more heavily and intrinsically involved and that D2 was much more on the periphery.  You, D1, and those directing you have to a large extent used and manipulated D2’s youth and naivety and you, D1, called upon her assistance using the intimate relationship that existed between the pair of you. 

20.  D2 has the right to feel betrayed although she, in her own right, was a full participant in the scheme relating to charge 5. 

21.  I deal first of all with the 1st charge, that is, possession of false travel documents.  I have referred to the case of HKSAR v Xu Yong-Biao Court of Appeal, Criminal Appeal 404 of 2000, where a sentence of 18 months was deemed appropriate for a plea of guilty.  I note that sentence was based on the repeated use of such false documents but it is to be distinguished from the present case which is possession.  On that offence I therefore take, as a starting point, 18 months’ imprisonment reduced to 12 for your plea of guilty.  Therefore, on the 1st offence, you will go to prison for one year. 

22.  Defendant, you have also pleaded guilty to four offences of conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of indictable offences.  The amount of laundered money is in the order of HK$20 million the majority of which has been lost to the victims and charge 5 was committed with D2.  I accept that neither you nor D2 can be said to be the masterminds, however, D1 you are much deeper involved than D2. 

23.  In sentencing each of you I of course take into account the facts, the mitigation and the evidence of involvement of each.  I note that each of you has a clear record and that you, D1, is of many more mature years than D2.  I have referred, to assist in the sentencing, to the cases of HKSAR v Zhan Jian Fu Criminal Appeal 258 of 2007.  In that case 2 year terms were upheld on an application of the principal of totality to give 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment relating to a sum of approximately HK$2 million.  Also HKSAR v Chen Zhen Chu, Court of Criminal Appeal 433 of 2006.  A sentence of 7½ years was approved for the laundering of HK$73 million with an international flavour. 

24.  Whilst there are no tariff cases as such, I do take into account the cases I have mentioned.  D1, as far as you are concerned, I take as a starting point in each of the four cases, a period of 3 years’ imprisonment reduced to 2.  The sentences in respect of charges 2 and 3 will be served consecutively to each other and consecutive to that on charge 1. 

25.  The sentences in respect of charges 4 and 5 will be concurrent with each other and concurrent with the other charges.  This is to give effect to the principle of totality. 

26.  Stand up, D1, please.  D1, you will go to prison for a total, therefore, of 5 years.

27.  D2, stand also, please.  D2 there is a single offence that was committed with D1.  I said previously that D1 is the prime mover and also referred to the many points in mitigation in this case.  On that single offence I take as a starting point, 2 years’ imprisonment reduced to 16 months for your plea of guilty.  You will go to prison for 16 months.