HKSAR v. LI CHI HO

DCCC 1/2025

[2026] HKDC 1016

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant faces 6 charges of "Money laundering" (Charges 1 to 6). He pleaded guilty to Charges 1, 2, 3 and 6.

2.  The prosecution applied to leave Charges 4 and 5 on the court file; not to be proceeded against the defendant without leave of court.  I granted the application.

Summary of Facts

3.  On 17 October 2022, the defendant opened the virtual bank accounts as particularized in Charges 1, 2, 3 and 6 (Accounts 1, 2, 3 and 6).  He was the sole signatory of all 4 accounts.

Deception

4.  Between November 2022 and April 2023, PWs 1 to 13 were deceived by different types of scams (including investment, gaming and online lottery).  They were lured to make payments to various bank accounts, which aggregated to about $5.3 million, of which a total sum of $431,650 were paid to Accounts 1, 2, 3 and 6.

Money laundering

Charge 1

5.  Between 17 October 2022 and 1 June 2023, Account 1 received 139 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $2,859,649.87.  After discounting the deposits which came from other bank accounts held by the defendant, the net total deposit received by Account 1 was $2,224,549.87 (of which a total sum of $143,500 came from PWs 1 to 5).  An aggregated sum of $2,859,649.87 was withdrawn by 172 transactions.  When it was closed on 1 June 2023, Account 1 had a zero balance. 

Charge 2

6.  Between 17 October 2022 and 15 May 2023, Account 2 received 274 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $4,745,054.23.  After discounting the deposits which came from Accounts 1 and 6, the net total deposit received by Account 2 was $4,724,754.23 (of which a total sum of $190,650 came from PWs 5 to 10).  An aggregated sum of $4,745,047 was withdrawn by 419 transactions.  When it was closed on 15 May 2023, Account 2 had a zero balance.

Charge 3

7.  Between 17 October 2022 and 16 June 2023, Account 3 received 43 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $832,676.09.  After discounting a deposit of $10 from Account 6, the net total deposit received by Account 3 was $832,666.09 (of which a sum of $10,000 came from PW11).  An aggregated sum of $832,676.09 was withdrawn by 61 transactions. When it was closed on 16 June 2023, Account 3 had a zero balance.

Charge 6

8.  Between 17 October 2022 and 5 January 2023, Account 6 received 134 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $1,184,474.50.  After discounting a deposit of $20 from Account 2, the net total deposit received by Account 6 was $1,184,454.50 (of which a sum of $87,500 came from PWs 12 and 13).  An aggregated sum of $1,184,474.50 was withdrawn by 178 transactions.  When it was closed on 5 January 2023, Account 6 had a zero balance.

Arrest

9.  The police arrested the defendant on 26 April, 12 June and 25 August 2023.  Under caution, he refused to answer questions in relation to Accounts 1, 2, 3 and 6.

Other evidence

10.  According to the respective bank records, the registered phone number for Accounts 1, 2, 3 and 6 was 4637 5514 ("the Phone Number").  Police investigation revealed that the subscriber of the Phone Number was not the defendant.  The Phone Number was registered for FPS (Faster Payment System)  in connection with Accounts 2, 3 and 6.  In other words, the defendant had dealt with the funds deposited into Accounts 1, 2, 3 and 6 together with persons who controlled the Phone Number.

11.  The defendant's background and tax records (or the lack of them)  during the offence period are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by Accounts 1, 2, 3 and 6.

Mitigation & Sentence

12.  The defendant is 53 and has 4 conviction records, none were related to "money laundering". Defence counsel Mr. Ng informed me that the defendant is married with no children. His wife resides in the mainland. He was a marble worker earning about $11,000 per month. In mitigation, Mr. Ng explained that when the defendant opened the bank accounts in question, it was in the midst the pandemic. He was unemployed and his mother was seriously ill. He sold the 4 bank accounts at $1,500 each.

13.  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. Ng did not object.

14.  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]."

15.  I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 28 April 2026. I am satisfied that in 2022 and 2023, deception-related money laundering cases were prevalent in Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the total value of monetary loss.

16.  There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money laundering through bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" remains widespread in Hong Kong today. 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 few or no willing "ML Stooges", criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts will fail.

17.  This is a typical case of money laundering by way of stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the deception against PWs 1 to 13, such scams would have been meaningless without his bank accounts. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given his role, the total sums which went through his 4 accounts and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

18.  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]

19.  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 offences, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as his personal circumstances.

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

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]

Charge 1

21.  I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i)  except the total sum of $143,500 which came from PWs 1 to 5, the funds received by Account 1 were related to any predicate offence; and (ii)  the defendant was involved in or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of Account 1, he should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

22.  On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of $2,224,549.87 went through Account 1 within a period of 7.5 months. By selling his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through Account 1, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s)  of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

23.  In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 24 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 30 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

24.  An aggregated sum of $4,724,754.23 went through Account 2 within a period of 7 months, of which $190,650 came from PWs 5 to 10. I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 3

25.  An aggregated sum of $832,666.09 went through Account 3 within a period of 8 months, of which $10,000 came from PW11. I adopt a starting point of 2.5 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 20 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 25 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 6

26.  An aggregated sum of $1,184,454.50 went through Account 6 within a period of 2.5 months, of which $87,500 came from PWs 12 and 13. I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 24 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 30 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

27.  The total sum received by the 4 bank accounts was $8.9 million odd. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 4.5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just[5]. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 36 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 45 months. To achieve this, I order: the sentences for Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently; Charges 3 and 6 to run concurrently; and 5 months in Charges 3 and 6 to run consecutively to Charges 1 and 2.