HKSAR v. JUWARIYAH SUGIYO

DCCC 370/2024

[2025] HKDC 628

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 370 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

NDUBISI ANTHONY CHUKWUEMEKA (D1)  and D4 are jointly charged with a "Money laundering" offence (Charge 3). D4 pleaded guilty to the charge.

Summary of Facts

2.  On 14 January 2022, D4 opened a bank account (No.506893247833)  with HSBC ("the Account").  In the opening mandate, D4 stated that she was a domestic helper and the purpose of the Account was for receiving her salary.

The predicate offence (romance scam)

3.  On 13 May 2022, Madam Tsang deposited 2 sums of cash (respectively HK$75,000 and HK$25,000)  into the Account.  On 20 May 2022, she deposited another sum of HK$50,000 into the Account.  Madam Tsang turned out to be a victim of an online romance scam on Facebook.  Her loss amounted to HK$465,000 in total.

Money laundering

4.  Between 17 January and 6 June 2022, the Account received 24 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of HK$692,100 (including HK$150,000 from Madam Tsang).  The Account has also received a deposit in the sum of US$30,000.  A total sum of HK$691,971.13 was withdrawn by 45 transactions.  The sum of US$30,000 was withdrawn by 9 transactions.

5.  Madam Tsang has also deposited money into another bank account (No.027796804833; Account 2).  On 13 May 2022, a total sum of HK$51,700 (respectively HK$100 and HK$51,600)  was transferred from the Account to Account 2.

Investigation

6.  D4 is a foreign domestic helper from Indonesia earning HK$4,600 per month.  She came to Hong Kong in January 2018.  The Police arrested her on 9 January 2023 at the address she had provided to HSBC.

7.  In her video recorded interview, D4 claimed that she lost her ATM card soon after she opened the Account.  She did not report her lost card to the bank because she had no time and there was no money in the Account.  She also claimed that she did not lend her bank card to anyone nor had she allowed anyone to use the Account.

8.  D4 now admits that she had allowed third parties to use the Account and in doing so, she had reasonable grounds to believe that the Account would be used to facilitate the deposits and withdrawals of funds which were proceeds of an indictable offence.

Mitigation & Sentence

9. D4 is 44 and has 1 conviction of a "Theft" offence (dated 2006). Defence counsel Mr. Donald informed me that D4 is married with 2 children (aged 13 and 9). Her husband and children live in Indonesia. In mitigation, Mr. Donald submitted that D4's mother became ill around January 2022. She borrowed money from a woman named "Aring" to pay for her mother's medical expenses. Aring gave $2,000 cash to D4 in return for D4 giving her the ATM card and PIN of the Account. D4's mother passed away in April 2022. D4 has lost contact with Aring.

10. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant to section 27(2)(c)  and (d)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap.455)  on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm caused to the community. Mr. Donald did not object.

11. I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was)  held "Under section 27(11)  of OSCO, what the prosecution has to prove is the prevalence of the offence, not the increase in the number of such offences[1]."

12. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 18 February 2025. I am satisfied that in 2022, money laundering cases were prevalent in Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the total value of monetary loss.

13. There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money laundering by bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" is still widespread and commonly being practised in Hong Kong today. What true criminals need are gullible scapegoats like D4 in the present case who would take the blame for them when the law enforcement takes action. The court must send a clear message to the general public that people who play the role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a deterrent effect. When there are fewer or no willing "ML Stooges", the criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts would fail.

14. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge bank account. D4 claimed complete ignorance of the romance scam against Madam Tsang; however, the scam would have been meaningless without D4's bank account. Assuming what D4 said is true, given her role, the total sums which went through the Account and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

15. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 held :-

Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward.[2]

16. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have also borne in mind the amounts of money involved, the duration of the offence, D4's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as her personal circumstances.

17. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P held :-

Generally speaking, the sentence passed in a "money laundering" case is primarily to reflect the amount of the "illicit/black money" involved. Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money"was actually not derived from an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…[3]

18. I accept there is no evidence in the present case showing that: (i)  except the HK$150,000 from Madam Tsang, the funds received by the Account were related to any predicate offence; and (ii)  either D4 was involved in or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of the Account, D4 should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis. These were her duties and she has neglected them.

19. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that HK$692,100 and US$30,000 (i.e. approximately HK$926,000[4] in total)  went through the Account within a period of almost 6 months. By giving her bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through the Account, D4 played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s)  of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

20. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 33 months' imprisonment[5]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 22 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence D4 to 27 months' imprisonment for Charge 3.