HKSAR v. CHIK CHI LEUNG

DCCC666/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 666 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  You are convicted of a number of money laundering charges. Such charges arose from more or less one criminal scheme. The period of the laundering of money spanned over a period of about 5 months as your counsel points out. Over $4 million you have dealt with, out of which you gained 1 per cent. You made a profit of $40,000 plus a mobile phone.

2.  There are no guidelines or tariffs in this type of cases. No one can dispute that laundering money is serious because it helps the perpetuator of crime to evade detection. You help them to enjoy the fruits of a criminal act. Many people would say, “Trace the money and you can trace the criminal.”

3.  It is only logical that the serious offence of money laundering depends on the seriousness of the original crime. The original crime is theft or obtaining money or pecuniary advantage by deception. The maximum sentence is 10 years. Incidentally, the maximum sentence for laundering money is also 10 years.

4.  Of course, logically, the one who laundered the money should be looked at more leniently than the one who committed the original offence. This is not necessarily the case. Handling stolen goods carries a maximum greater than a simple theft charge. But you do not have to worry; this is only academic. In your case, I do not think you deserve a sentence more severe than the person who perpetuated the deception on victims.

5.  It would be of assistance if I draw some assistance from sentencing cases in respect of theft. It is a very common practice for the court to decide on the tariffs by reference to the amount of money involved and in particular in theft case there is authority in Court of Appeal cases.

6.  In the Court of Appeal case HKSAR v Lam Mei Kiu a quantitative tariff has been laid down in respect of a theft case involving a breach of trust. It involved a number of charges. It has been suggested that theft involving breach of trust for the sum of $3 million to $12 million a tariff of 5 to 9 years would be appropriate.

7.  As I have said, you are not charged with theft. You are not charged with conspiracy. You are not charged with accessory after the fact. You are simply charged with laundering money and no breach of trust is involved in the original theft. The victim who has been cheated committed the usual error of placing trust in the wrong person, persons who actually had done nothing to deserve their trust.

8.  The deception is not a very sophisticated plan. Only a greedy person would fall for such a plan, earning few time your capital within a short time. I am taking that into account but I have to bear in mind there is one aggravating factor in your case because the method of laundering is closely associated with the original crime and it has been very effective in helping the criminal to evade detection and preventing the recovery of money.

9.  The approach for me is to determine the sentence, which must be custodial in the circumstances. The sentence should be one concurrent, taking a global view of all these charges. A starting point of 2½ years is appropriate. You have pleaded guilty. You are entitled to one-third remission.

10.  I am sorry that your personal circumstances does not help you much, or your caring family and your family’s predicament, etc., etc., which you are well aware of. You cannot shelter behind the old age of your parents. You should blame yourself if in fact your father has committed suicide on your account. Not much weight can be attached to that fact. Otherwise it will be misunderstood and the parents in Hong Kong are well known to be self-sacrificing. They may try to take extreme action to harm themselves in order to gain mitigating factors for the undeserving children in court. You should not have even mentioned that.

11.  You haven’t mentioned how it affected you. Did you feel happy? Because of suicide, you can get an extra mitigating factor or what? I do not understand. It would be otherwise if such death would cause you more remorse, cause you anxiety, cause you actual harm mentally or physically. The mere fact that your father took an extreme way to get out of the situation should not be given weight.

12.  Yes, as usual, you said you wanted to reform yourself. Nobody can stop you. I cannot see how I can help you to reform by passing a much shorter sentence. You should start reforming yourself immediately. You do not have to wait for the sentencing. Whether or not you are punished severely or leniently you should reform yourself. It cannot be dependent upon the leniency of the court.

13.  But I do have some sympathy for your mother. It will make her very difficult to see you often because she has to go to the prison to visit you, but it is inevitable. The only way in which you can make your mother happy is to behave yourself and to show some genuine remorse and show her some effort you are reforming yourself. I am sure your mother would live a much longer life if you have shown some positive attitude towards her.

14.  Yet, in view of your clear record, and in view of your particular circumstances and the overall family support, and the rather unfortunate action by your father, which has had some effect on your mother, I will follow the example of the case I have mentioned. I give you another 3 months remission and so 17 months’ imprisonment on each of Charges 1, 2 and 3, all concurrent.

15.  In respect of the 4th charge, I do not think it is appropriate to call for any report. Because of that it appears I cannot sentence you to prison for that offence. I will fine you $800 in view of your predicament.