HKSAR v. CHAN CHAU LUEN

 DCCC76/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 76 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant is charged for three counts of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455. The defendant pleaded guilty and admitted the facts.

Facts

2.  The defendant opened the bank account in question on 23 July 2009. Apart from the initial cash deposit of $2,000 and another cash deposit of $200, there were no other deposits except the remittance of HK$464,164.69 (represents Charge 1) and HK$386,795.68 (represents Charge 2) and 618,952.69 (represents Charge 3) on 2, 3, 4 September 2009 respectively, making a total of $1,469,913.06.

3.  The defendant withdrew $464,000 and $387,400 and $610,000 on 2, 3 and 4 September 20009 respectively, leaving a balance of HK$9,013.06.

4.  Upon caution, the defendant said he handed over the money to a friend accompanying him to the bank, waiting outside. The defendant was arrested on 15 September 2009 when he attempted to withdraw $2,000 cash from his account. In fact, the money remitted to the defendant’s account was from an old lady in Taiwan who had been deceived in a scam. The lady was told her personal data had been used in money-laundering activities and that her factory’s bank account would be frozen by the Taipei authorities soon. She was advised to remit the money from the factory’s bank account to a designated account to prevent the money from being frozen. Following those advice, she remitted the money in question to the defendant’s bank account in Hong Kong.

5.  In mitigation, the defence said the defendant was told the money was concerned his friend’s company tax evasion matter. This is contained in the defendant’s mitigations letter. Out of foolishness and financial difficulties, he agreed to lend his bank account to a friend for a reward of $9,000. No doubt the defendant knows or believes the money is proceeds of indictable offence. I accept the defendant was a cog in the machine. Yet, without the assistance of the defendant, the culprit could not get the proceeds of the crime.

6.  Taking into account of the fact and the sum involved, I consider the appropriate starting point to be 45 months for each count. The defendant pleaded guilty, entitled to one-third discount.

7.  The defendant, aged 33, remarried in 2009. The wife remains in mainland with a daughter. The defendant lives alone in Hong Kong, working as a casual construction site worker earning around $10,000 per month. The defendant is a responsible husband and son, and the defendant has returned the remaining sum, which represents the property of the victim, in full to her via the police.

8.  I accept the defendant was very remorseful of what he did, and for his previous good character, I give him a 3-month further deduction. And taking into the totality considerations, all the sentence to run concurrent, making a total of 27 months. So the order: Charge 1, sentenced to 27 months; Charge 2, 27 months; and Charge 3, 27 months; all to run concurrent, making a total of 27 months.