HKSAR v. GUO WEIQIANG

DCCC 235/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 235 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charges and facts

1.  The defendant pleads guilty to 2 charges of money laundering. 

2.  Charge 1 concerns his account with the Standard Chartered Bank, which received proceeds, from the victim of a suspected fraud perpetrated in Taiwan, by a remittance of HK$776,881.60 on 19 April 2011.  The majority was withdrawn, in person the following day, with the residue by transfer, ATM in Hong Kong or Guangzhou.  

3.  Charge 2 concerns his account with HSBC, which received proceeds, from the victim of a fraud perpetrated in Taiwan, by 4 remittances, USD246,878.01 or HK$1,915,936.70[1] in total, between 21 April 2011 and 18 May 2011.   The majority was withdrawn, in person the same day after each remittance, with the residue by transfer, ATM in Hong Kong or in Guangzhou Panyu.  

Personal background and mitigation

4.  He is 35 years of age, of clear record.  He comes on a China two-way permit.  He claims to be a wine wholesaler.  His son is 6 years old.  His wife is a housewife.    

Sentencing considerations

5.  The courts recognized the extensive permutations of money laundering cases.  There are no sentencing guidelines.  Comparisons between cases are difficult, if at all helpful.  In HKSAR v. BOMA [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, 43, the Court of Appeal identified the features relevant in the sentencing of money launderers.  Stock VP regarded, apart from the amount of money laundered, as relevant the following factors:

(1) The nature and penalty of the predicate offence;

(2) The nature of knowledge or belief of the predicate offence on the part of the money launderer;

(3) The international element;

(4) The sophistication of the money laundering offence, including the degree of planning or whether deceit is practiced to achieve the money laundering;

(5) The instance of a criminal syndicate;

(6) The number of transactions and the length of time in the money laundering process;

(7) Subsequent knowledge of the predicate offence evolved from a case of reasonable belief;

(8) The role and acts of the money launderer, including his position and reward.

Sentencing this defendant

6.  On the one hand, there is no evidence that he knew of the predicate fraud in each case. It was not a sophisticated scam.  There was no sign of a marked criminal syndicate.  The number of transactions was small.  The duration of the offences was short. 

7.  On the other hand, there was an international element for the monies to come from Taiwan to dissipate in Hong Kong and Mainland China.  The sums, $776,881.60 and $1,915,936.70 respectively, were quite substantial.

8.  I take 2 years for Charge 1 and 3 years for Charge 2 as the respective starting points. I give a one-third discount for the pleas of guilty.  There are no other effective mitigating factors.  Charge 1 is thus 16 months.  Charge 2 is 2 years.  These were separate transactions, which warrant consecutive sentences. 

9.  However, by totality, I order 6 months of Charge 1 to run consecutive to the sentence of Charge 2, the rest concurrent.  The overall length is 2 ½ years.