HKSAR v. WONG PUI TING, HEIDI AND ANOTHER

DCCC 83 & 463/2019 (Consolidated)

[2020] HKDC 919

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 83 & 463 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

Reasons for Sentence

________________________

1.  The 1st defendant and 2nd defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 1, a charge of conspiring with the 3rd defendant, Ms Gallego Jeanette Villaflores, to live on the earnings of prostitution of others, contrary to Sections 137(1), 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. The 3rd defendant had pleaded guilty earlier and was sentenced last year on 29 October 2019.

2.  The 1st defendant also pleaded guilty to Charges 2, 3 and 6, all offences 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.  She faced another charge of money laundering, Charge 5, but that was left on the court file after negotiations with the prosecution.

3.  The 2nd defendant also pleaded guilty to Charges 2, 4 and 7, all offences of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.  There was an attempt by the 2nd defendant to negotiate a charge or charges being left on the court file but, unlike the 1st defendant, she was unsuccessful.  This was despite her indication of her plea to Charge 1 at the earliest opportunity and her intention to give evidence against the 1st defendant.

4.  On 14 January 2020, this case was set down for trial.  It was set down for 16 days, commencing on 5 October 2020.  On 14 January 2020, the 1st defendant had indicated a plea of not guilty to all charges.  The 2nd defendant had indicated a plea of guilty to Charge 1 and a plea of not guilty to the remaining money laundering charges.

5.  On 8 May 2020, the court was informed by letter that the 2nd defendant intended to plead guilty to all charges.  By then, she had given two non-prejudicial statements to the police and indicated a willingness to give evidence against the 1st defendant.

6.  There was a mention hearing on 21 August 2020. The prosecution served a re-amended charge sheet, which was not objected to by the defendants.  On that same day, the 1st defendant was served the 2nd defendant’s non-prejudicial statements.  Despite the statements being taken several months earlier, the 2nd defendant’s position as a prosecution witness had only recently been finalised.  Up until this date, the 1st defendant was represented by Ms Charlotte Draycott, SC, leading Ms M Booth.

7.  A further mention date was set down for 3 September 2020.  The 1st defendant engaged a different Senior Counsel purely for the purposes of making an application to vacate the upcoming trial dates. The other parties objected and I refused the application after hearing submissions.

8.  As it appeared the 1st defendant would be unrepresented for trial, I set down a pre-trial review hearing for 17 September 2020.  On that date, she was once again represented by Ms Charlotte Draycott, SC.  Ms Draycott had instructions to inform the court that the 1st defendant intended to plead guilty to all charges except for Charge 5, which would be left on the court file. 

9.  The plea of both defendants was taken on the first day of trial, 5 October 2020.

Summary of facts

10.  The particulars of the offences are set out in the facts admitted by the 1st and 2nd defendants.  There were two Summary of Facts, one for each defendant, as they were prepared on the premise that the 2nd defendant would plead guilty to all charges on the first day of the 1st defendant’s trial and admit the Summary of Facts prepared specifically for her.

11.  At all material times, the 1st defendant was the employer of two foreign domestic helpers from the Philippines, the 2nd and 3rd defendants.  They lived with her in an apartment on Tregunter Path, Mid-Levels, Hong Kong.

12.  In summary, the 1st defendant operated six Internet websites offering sexual services of prostitutes between May 2009 and May 2018.  An operation was mounted by the police where on 16 April and 15 May 2018, four undercover police officers contacted various mobile phone numbers that were advertised on those Internet websites offering sexual services.  All four police officers spoke to either the 2nd or 3rd defendant to arrange sexual services.  The 2nd or 3rd defendant then sent photographs of women to those police officers’ mobile phones for them to choose a prostitute.  All four police officers selected a woman from those photographs and checked into different hotels.

13.  All four officers waited in different hotel rooms where subsequently those prostitutes arrived and offered them sexual services.  The prices were either $6,000 if cash was paid or $7,080 if payment was made by a credit card.  Sexual services were only offered after payment was made.  Those sex workers were arrested and either Russian or Venezuelan passport holders who were visitors in Hong Kong.

14.  All three defendants were arrested on 15 May 2018 when the home of the 1st defendant was raided and searched. 

15.  Many exhibits relating to the sex websites were seized, including mobile phones which had numbers corresponding to those advertised on the websites.  Some of those numbers were those called by the four police officers. 

16.  There were nine landline phones; bank account e-tokens; print-outs from the subject websites and telephone lists of Hong Kong hotels; four laptop computers containing photographs of the subject websites; two manual credit card imprinters and blank invoices, similar to those used by the sex workers for the undercover officers’ credit cards; two sets of handwritten ledgers with a total of 17 books. Those ledgers contained the transaction details of the four undercover officers.

17.  Those handwritten ledgers contained details of the sex workers and client transactions.  They were financial records of the business showing income for the period 2009 to 2018 of about $31.5 million. These are from ledgers described as complete ledgers.  There are other ledgers containing less detail than those complete ledgers with a total income of about HK$5.6 million.

18.  There were documents seized by the police concerning Firstmount Investments Limited (“Firstmount”) as well as company chops and chequebooks.  Of the six sex websites, one of them was registered in Hong Kong by Firstmount, with its company contact person being a Heidi Wong with a phone number belonging to the 1st defendant.

19.  Five mobile phones which were listed on those six websites were registered by Firstmount, with the billing address being the 1st defendant’s residence.  Call records show that incoming calls to those five mobile phones would be automatically forwarded to several landline numbers. All of those were registered to Vardenvale Limited, with a billing address again being the 1st defendant’s residence.

20.  The 1st defendant agreed that she was the sole shareholder and sole director of Firstmount and the other company, Vardenvale Limited.  Vardenvale was the registered owner of the 1st defendant’s home.

21.  The 2nd defendant admitted the offences in her video recorded interview.  She started to work as a domestic helper from April 2009 for the 1st defendant.  Her monthly salary was $4,310.  There were a total of three domestic helpers in the premises.  One month after she arrived in Hong Kong, the 1st defendant asked her to answer telephone calls from clients seeking sexual services.  She was told to learn how to answer the phone from the 3rd defendant who had arrived before her.  She learnt how to answer telephone calls and make arrangements for prostitutes to go to clients at an address they provided, normally a hotel.

22.  The 2nd defendant explained that once a final price was agreed between the client and her or the 3rd defendant, they would call the handlers of prostitutes directly to arrange the prostitutes to go to designated addresses. 

23.  If the client opted to pay by credit card, the prostitute would imprint the credit card details on a credit card slip given to them earlier.  An image of an imprinted slip would be sent back to the 2nd or 3rd defendant by WhatsApp.  They would then imprint the name of Firstmount on those payment slips and call the bank to get an authorisation code for that particular transaction and write the code on that slip.  They would then send this slip to the bank by post.  She knew that those payments would be deposited into a bank account of Firstmount or one of the 1st defendant’s HSBC accounts.

24.  If a client chose to pay by cash, then the prostitute or her handler would deposit half of the money received from the client into an account designated by the 1st defendant.  If the service charge was $6,000, then the 1st defendant would receive $3,000 with the other $3,000 going to the handler and prostitute.  Every transaction was recorded in a ledger by the person answering that call.

25.  The 2nd defendant would be rewarded by the 1st defendant.  She would receive 0.5 per cent of the share of proceeds received by the 1st defendant every month.  She says she would normally receive about an extra $1,000 in cash on top of her domestic helper’s salary.  The 3rd defendant had said the same.

26.  The 2nd defendant said the 1st defendant paid an Indian man to design and maintain the six or seven sexual websites.

27.  The 1st defendant told the 2nd and 3rd defendant to provide photographs they found on the Internet of women to post on those website galleries to represent prostitutes available.  Those women portrayed on the websites were not actually available to provide sexual services but the defendants would contact the handlers for a similar-looking prostitute when named and required.  It was the handler who sent the women out to clients.

28.  In her own words, in her non-prejudicial statement, the 2nd defendant said the 1st defendant’s home was a hotline centre where arrangements for provisions of girls for sex services were made.

29.  The police seized lists compiled to indicate the characteristics of the girls or prostitutes in the galleries of the websites. For example, if a customer wanted a prostitute called “Grace” from the hongkongescort.com website, then the 2nd defendant would see from the compiled list that Grace was blonde.  She would then ask the handlers to arrange a blonde prostitute for that client.  The lists contained categories such as blonde, brunette or Asian.

30.  There was also another seized list with columns for Asian girls and Western girls, which depicted the prostitutes’ names and their phone numbers.  The handlers were named on these lists with their phone numbers.  They were handlers of these prostitutes.  They were the middlemen between the call centre and the prostitutes.  The 2nd defendant said she had met a couple of them through the 1st defendant.

31.  In that same statement, the 2nd defendant said the 1st defendant fixed the price of sexual services and took 50 per cent of the money paid by each client.  She would help the 2nd and 3rd defendant answer phone calls if they were busy.  If they were busy on the phone, the 1st defendant would sometimes get the approval code from the bank herself when there were credit card payments.  It was the 1st defendant who taught them how to make the record of the ledgers and calculate the profit.  She would listen in and supervise their telephone conversations with clients.

32.  The 2nd defendant described her as the mastermind of the sex business and her domestic helpers operated it for her. All the proceeds went into accounts controlled by the 1st defendant only.

The money laundering charges

33.  Through the 1st defendant’s company, Firstmount, she controlled several bank accounts through which all of the monies earned by the 1st defendant for Count 1 flowed. 

34.  Count 2 related to a Fubon Bank account and between 5 August 2011 and 23 May 2018 a total of $8,802,145 was paid into this account, all of which were proceeds of and flowed from Charge 1.  The 1st and 2nd defendant were jointly charged with the 3rd defendant and admitted this charge.

35.  Through one particular HSBC account, between 1 January 2010 and 15 May 2018, a total of $10,514,801.52 was paid into this account, all of which were proceeds of and flowed from Charge 1.  The 1st defendant admitted this amount flowed directly either as cash or as cash transfers or indirectly from Fubon or American Express accounts.  These are the particulars of Charge 3 against the 1st defendant only.

36.  Through that same HSBC account of Charge 3 and between the same dates, there were deposits totalling $20,132,118.77 and withdrawals totalling $20,246,788.46, of which a total of $4,331,565.55 was deposited into this account by cash in 1,136 transactions.  The 2nd defendant admitted that last sum of money deposited in that account in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represented the proceeds of Charge 1 and she, with the 3rd defendant, aided and abetted the 1st defendant to deal with that property. These are the particulars of Charge 4 against the 2nd defendant only.

37.  Through a HSBC account in the 1st defendant’s own name between 1 January 2010 and 15 May 2018, it was admitted $13,028,207.17 was paid into her account, all of which were proceeds of and flowed from Charge 1.  The 1st defendant admitted this amount flowed directly as cash or cash transfers.  These are the particulars of Charge 6 against the 1st defendant only.

38.  Through that same HSBC account of Charge 6 and between the same dates, there were deposits totalling $11,589,378.52 deposited into this account belonging to the 1st defendant by cash in 3,459 transactions.  The 2nd defendant admitted that that sum of money deposited in that account in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of Charge 1 and she, with the 3rd defendant, aided and abetted the 1st defendant to deal with the said property.  These are the particulars of Charge 7 against the 2nd defendant only.

39.  The 3rd defendant was involved in this conspiracy to live on earnings of prostitution before the 2nd defendant arrived in Hong Kong.  In Charges 2, 4 and 7, the 3rd defendant is named in the particulars as dealing with those proceeds of an indictable offence with the 2nd defendant.  However, she was not charged with any money laundering offences, only Charge 1.  Those charges against the 2nd defendant came after the 3rd defendant pleaded guilty and came after the 2nd defendant indicated she would only plead guilty to the conspiracy to live on earnings of prostitution.

40.  There is no dispute that the proceeds in all these money laundering charges represented the proceeds of Charge 1.  This is a situation where the origin of the funds of an indictable offence are identified.  This is not a case where money is laundered or cleaned and its exact origins unknown.

Mitigation

41.  In passing sentence, I have carefully considered the oral submissions from Ms Draycott as well as the letter from the 1st defendant expressing her remorse.  I take into account her previous clear record.  It is said she is now about 70 years old.  Although the antecedent statement gives her age as 68, she is not sure exactly when she was born in China.

42.  I have also read and considered the contents of the various letters from doctors, including psychiatrists who have treated her in the past and recently.  From as early as 2004, she has been medicated for and treated for anxiety, depression and insomnia.  That is long before the dates of this conspiracy.

43.  There are two separate psychiatrists’ reports dated January and September 2020.  Both doctors conducted cognitive function tests.  In the earlier report, there was no significant cognitive function impairment detected.  There was a diagnosis of moderate severity depressive disorder.

44.  In the second report, tests conducted about nine months later showed clinically significant cognitive impairment of a mild degree.  A magnetic resonance imaging of her brain and angiography was performed with no abnormalities found.  That psychiatrist’s opinion was that she was also suffering from a major depressive disorder.  He also opined she has an increased risk of developing or progressing to dementia. 

45.  It was stressed in mitigation that the conspiracy to live on earnings of prostitution of others was a victimless crime because all parties to the offence were consenting adults who came here or were here willingly to make money in this manner.  Therefore, the criminality was not high nor was the mischief serious.  The 1st defendant was a sex worker herself when she was younger and it was submitted that to call the prostitutes “victims” is demeaning.

46.  The 1st defendant came from an unloving family and left home when she was a teenager.  She then worked as an escort and provided sexual services to support herself.  She did marry her husband after a long friendship but when he found out she was a sex worker he stopped having any physical contact with her.  They never had any children, which is a regret for the 1st defendant.  They, however, remained married and were more friends as opposed to husband and wife, but since her arrest they have grown close again.  He is prepared to look after her going forward in the future.

47.  The 1st defendant set up an escort and prostitution service when she herself became too old to work as a prostitute. She never forced anybody to provide sexual services and it was set up as a transparent, proper business.  She did not coerce the 2nd or 3rd defendant into helping her operate the business.  They themselves earned money from it over a period of years.

48.  The 1st defendant says the 2nd and 3rd defendant not only got a percentage of monthly profits but also tips from the women themselves to put their names forward to clients.  The 2nd defendant vehemently denies this.  She says at most she would earn between $750 and $1,000 a month on top of her salary.  This corresponded to what the 3rd defendant had said in her mitigation.  Moreover, the 2nd defendant explained that they only dealt with the handlers, who then arranged which prostitute would go to which hotel. They did not deal directly with the prostitutes themselves.

49.  It was suggested the 1st defendant should benefit from a full one-third discount or almost, as if she had entered a plea at the earliest opportunity.  This was because she only received the 2nd defendant’s non-prejudicial statements and knew she would give evidence against her in August this year.

50.  It was also suggested that the application to adjourn the trial dates after she found out the 2nd defendant would give evidence against her was because she wanted to buy time and spend what time she had left with all her mental faculties out of prison.  This was because she has symptoms of early onset of dementia.

51.  The 2nd defendant is 42 years old, separated from her husband, and a mother of two adult children.  Both were studying at university when she was arrested.  She was the financial provider of her children and family but since her arrest in May 2018 she has been unemployed and they have suffered.  In fact, she has been here waiting for this day to come for a long time.  She was in custody for eight months before given bail. She has been patiently living in an overcrowded boarding house, with all the fears associated with this pandemic, to plead guilty and give evidence against the 1st defendant.

52.  I have read the letter from the Consul of the Consulate-General of the Republic of the Philippines in Hong Kong.  He has come to know her personally as a result of this case.  He has explained how her compassion, optimism and cheerfulness has helped those who have been living in the shelter with her.  Many of those are in desperate and dire situations.

53.  There is a similar letter from the social welfare attaché of the same consulate, who offered the 2nd defendant assistance when she was in remand and whilst living in the shelter. Both say it was her obedience and naivety that led to this situation as well as her desire to keep her job with the 1st defendant. I have taken into account the other letters from the same consulate, the mayor of her home town, and friends.

54.  I take into account she has a clear record in Hong Kong.

55.  As I said above, she, from the earliest opportunity, indicated a plea of guilty to the conspiracy charge.  She was going to fight the money laundering charges but in May 2020 indicated her plea to all charges.  She had also by then given two non-prejudicial statements and indicated her willingness to give evidence against the 1st defendant.

56.  It was explained in mitigation that not long after she started to work for the 1st defendant, she was instructed to take calls from clients to operate this prostitution business.  She was taught by the 1st and 3rd defendant.  The 1st defendant told her that prostitution was legal in Hong Kong.  In any event, she felt she had no choice but to assist in this business for fear of losing her domestic helper employment contract. 

57.  She does not try to excuse her agreement to participate in this conspiracy.  She fully accepts her culpability.

58.  It is stressed, however, she was a mere employee and earned very little for her participation in this conspiracy, considering the proceeds earned as evidenced by the ledgers and bank accounts.

59.  It is stressed her willingness to give evidence and provide assistance to the prosecution should mean a significant discount over and above the usual one-third discount.  It is obvious that her willingness to be a witness has meant the 1st defendant had no choice but to plead guilty.

60.  It has been suggested in mitigation that there was an attempt to pervert the course of justice by the 1st and 3rd defendant who tried to influence the 2nd defendant.  It was suggested that she was approached by the 1st defendant on two occasions offering to engage different lawyers for her to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity like the 3rd defendant.  The 1st defendant had engaged lawyers for the others at her own expense.  Even the Philippine Consulate received a message from the 1st defendant telling them to advise the 2nd defendant to change her legal team. The 3rd defendant sent her messages saying that the 1st defendant would pay her a very large sum of money if she pleaded guilty, served her sentence, and went home to the Philippines. 

61.  There was an investigation by the police and the prosecution decided for various reasons that they would not pursue the charges against the 1st defendant.  The 3rd defendant was contacting the 2nd defendant from the Philippines.

62.  Defence counsel Mr Shah said he was shocked that, despite the evidence from the 2nd defendant, the Philippine Consulate and the evidence of the messages from the 3rd defendant, there will be no further charges.

63.  I cannot and do not take this mitigation and information into account for the purposes of sentencing the 1st defendant.

64.  I have been asked to take into account that those money laundering charges were laid against the 2nd defendant and not the 3rd defendant, when their roles were identical.

65.  Also, after the 1st defendant put her hand up to plead guilty, she was offered a plea bargain, whilst the 2nd defendant, who was instrumental in the 1st defendant’s change of plea, was denied a plea bargain. This is despite her pivotal role. Mr Shah stresses these factors and submits I should take them into account.  She has not been treated well and can be described as a victim herself. There is definitely merit in this submission.

66.  Mr Shah also points out, in the reasons for sentence for the 3rd defendant dated 29 October 2019, the sentencing judge noted at paragraph 6 that the prosecution said that they considered the 3rd defendant’s role in this case to be relatively minor.  From the facts admitted by all the defendants, I can see no difference in the participation and roles of the 2nd and 3rd defendants.

67.  I have been taken through the relevant authorities where the courts have rewarded those that assist the prosecution and give evidence against the defendant.

68.  Both Mr Shah and Ms Draycott have stressed that the money laundering charges referred to proceeds that directly flowed from or are part and parcel of Charge 1, the predicate offence.  Both counsel have referred me to HKSAR v Chan Kim Chung, Nelson [2012] 2 HKLRD 263, specifically paragraphs 17 to 19.

Reasons for Sentence

69.  There is no tariff for the offence of living on the earnings of prostitution of others.  Sentence will depend on the particular facts of each case.  The maximum sentence was increased to 10 years from 5 years in 1997.  This reflects the legislators’ view on the seriousness of the offence.  A custodial sentence is inevitable for this kind of offence.

70.  The relevant factors for consideration in sentencing, as discussed in HKSAR v Tam Ka Chun, Danny, CACC 406/2010, include:

(a)  the scale of prostitution;

(b)  the number of prostitutes involved;

(c)  the length of the commission of the offence;

(d)  the origins of the prostitutes and/or whether they are of an age which makes them susceptible to manipulation and exploitation;

(e)  the role of the defendants;

(f)  the amount of each defendant’s gain and financial benefit; and

(g)  whether the defendants have similar previous criminal convictions.

71.  Without a doubt, this was a large-scale operation.  The conspiracy here was nine years long.  The number of women involved with six different sex services websites available over that time must have been significant.  In the one complete ledger I have perused - I have marked it as “MFI-1” - I counted 25 different prostitutes’ names just in the first three months of 2012.  With six websites and that many women involved, the scale of the prostitution can only be described as large.  It was well organised by the 1st defendant.

72.  Much has been made of the fact that there was no control or exploration of the prostitutes and that they were all willing participants earning money for themselves, not victims. 

73.  I would not go so far as to say there was no exploitation or control by the 1st defendant or their rather sinisterly named handlers.  What I will say is that there is no evidence of any of these women who were either living in Hong Kong or came specifically to Hong Kong being exploited, manipulated or controlled.  There is no evidence of their age, which may make them vulnerable or susceptible.  This is therefore not a factor to be considered relevant to sentence.

74.  The very different roles of the 1st and 2nd defendant are glaringly obvious.  The 2nd defendant was employed as a domestic helper, later drafted in to run this business with another domestic helper. The 1st defendant has taken advantage of their position in her household and in Hong Kong.  They were used by the 1st defendant and the small amounts they earned each month on top of their basic salaries as domestic helpers was de minimis when the profits made by the 1st defendant are taken into account. This was certainly not a conspiracy of equal footing.

75.  The income recorded in the 10 complete ledger books added up to about HK$31.5 million, covering a period from 1 January 2009 to 15 May 2018.  Those reduced ledger books recorded an income of about 5.6 million, covering a period from April 2008 to March 2015.  The amount of the money laundering charges, Charges 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, add up to $48,266,149.24.

76.  The picture painted is of the 1st defendant running a very lucrative and profitable prostitution racket from her own home for many years, a luxury home on Tregunter Path, a home owned by her through a company in which she is a sole director and sole shareholder. 

77.  If the 2nd defendant had been paid $1,000 each month for her role and worked there for nine years, then her benefit adds up to $108,000 in total.  The 1st defendant was the mastermind and owner of this business and she reaped the real financial benefits.  Therefore, her starting point will be higher than that appropriate for the 2nd defendant.

78.  One other relevant factor is an international element here.  I am sure many of these women from overseas came here to work as prostitutes for the length of their tourist visas.  The operation via websites and the 1st defendant meant they were directed to clients and earned money without the risk of arrest, touting for business on the streets or in bars or in one-woman brothels.  There was the demand from the 1st defendant’s website and it attracted an overseas supply of prostitutes coming here to break the law.

The money laundering charges

79.  The proceeds of all these charges did come from Charge 1 and were part and parcel of that offence and business.  The proceeds in those accounts were the fruits of Charge 1, but part of those proceeds, when fees were paid by credit cards, was deposited by the defendant and held for the benefit of the handlers and the prostitutes who were entitled to half the fee charged. 

80.  By this, I mean not all the proceeds went to the 1st defendant.  She was dealing with part of the proceeds, if paid by credit cards, for the benefit of others.  She was laundering their money, their share. 

81.  This is relevant to the approach to be adopted in sentencing a defendant who is guilty both of the predicate offence and a connected section 25 offence.  If the section 25 offence adds nothing to the culpability disclosed by the commission of the predicate offence, then an additional sentence effectively for the section 25 offence should not be imposed.  Doing so would in effect punish the defendant twice for the same conduct.  Concurrent sentences should be imposed.  However, if the commission of the section 25 offence does add something to the culpability disclosed by the commission of the predicate offence, then that extra culpability should be reflected in the overall sentence imposed.

82.  In this case, I find the use of the 1st defendant’s accounts to deal with the money earned by the handlers and prostitutes when credit cards are used for payment does add something to the culpability of the 1st defendant.  Not only were the proceeds fruits of the predicate offence but those accounts were used to collect and move some proceeds that belonged to others.

Sentence

The 1st defendant

83.  As I have said above, there was an indication of a plea of guilty on 17 September 2020, which is long after the fixing of trial dates and about three weeks before the first day of trial. 

84.  I have referred myself to the authority of HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1.  According to that authority, subject to the overriding discretion of the judge in sentencing, a defendant who gives the court or the prosecution an indication of a plea of not guilty at the plea date, after which trial dates are fixed, who then indicates to the court or the prosecution before the first day of trial that he or she wishes to plead guilty, is to be afforded a discount between 25 and 20 per cent of that taken as the starting point for sentence.

85.  In determining the appropriate discount to be afforded to the defendant in those circumstances, a judge will have regard to the time at which the indication was given and to all the other relevant circumstances.

86.  The only change between the date in January 2020 when the trial was set down for 16 days and the very late indication of a plea was the fact that the 2nd defendant intended to give evidence against the 1st defendant.  The evidence against the 1st defendant was the same but now there was to be direct evidence from a co-accused of the conspiracy.  Unless there is a confession or an accomplice gives evidence for the prosecution, a conspiracy is normally proven by the marshalling of circumstantial evidence.

87.  I see no reason to depart from the Court of Appeal’s decision in Ngo Van Nam just because the circumstantial evidence became easier to prove.  Therefore, I should consider a discount between 20 to 25 per cent appropriate in this situation. 

88.  I will ignore the blatant attempt to delay the proceedings by the 1st defendant’s application to vacate the trial dates. 

89.  I will take into account the 1st defendant’s age in mitigation and afford her a discount of just under 25 per cent. 

90.  I have taken into account the mitigation put forward, in particular the mitigation relating to her health and mental condition.  However, she did suffer from anxiety and depression long before she even embarked on this large-scale illegal prostitution operation.  Clearly, it did not hinder her masterminding this business and earning millions.  The stress of her arrest and pending trial may very well have affected her health but it is self-inflicted and is not a mitigating factor of any significant weight.

91.  I have taken into account the facts of this case, the factors I have referred to above, including the scale of the operation and the financial benefit to the 1st defendant.

92.  Lastly, I have taken into account her age and her previous clear record.

93.  I find a starting point of 3 years and 6 months for Charge 1 appropriate.  I find the same starting point of 3 years and 6 months appropriate for Charges 2, 3 and 6. 

94.  I afford the 1st defendant a discount of just under 25 per cent for her late plea:  a discount of 10 months from these starting points.

95.  Accordingly, for Charges 1, 2, 3 and 6, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.

96.  I have considered the totality principle and the fact that some of the proceeds from credit card payments were collected, deposited and moved from the 1st defendant’s bank accounts for the benefit of others.

97.  To reflect this, I will order that 4 months of Charge 2 to be served consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrently. The other sentences will be served concurrently to Charge 1.  Therefore, the 1st defendant will serve a total sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment.

The 2nd defendant

98.  I repeat the comment the prosecution made to the sentencing judge of the 3rd defendant and that is they considered the 3rd defendant’s role was relatively minor.  That must apply equally to the 2nd defendant.  Their roles were the same.  The 3rd defendant was sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment after her plea to Charge 1. 

99.  I have taken into account the fact the 2nd defendant was a foot-soldier whilst the 1st defendant was the mastermind and this will be reflected in her sentence.

100.  Moreover, she was the 1st defendant’s domestic helper and, unless she wanted to lose her employment contract, she would agree to participate in the conspiracy.  She was paid but a very small portion of the proceeds of Charge 1 and the proceeds in all the money laundering charges, which were millions of dollars earned over a period of nine years, for her role.

101.  The 2nd defendant did not share in the proceeds and was only guilty of dealing with the proceeds of an indictable offence because she facilitated the deposits into the 1st defendant’s bank accounts.

102.  Lastly, she was willing to give evidence as a prosecution witness and the prosecution accepted her offer of assistance.

103.  I have read her two non-prejudicial statements and I am sure they were pivotal in the 1st defendant’s change of plea.  It appears the prosecution gave her little credit for this and refused her a similar plea bargain they agreed with the 1st defendant.

104.  I know she has spent 235 days in custody on remand already.  That would be equivalent to about a 1-year sentence if served with good behaviour.  She then spent 20 months living in an overcrowded shelter awaiting trial during the worst of the COVID-19 pandemic, with no employment possible, no income or money of her own.  Whilst there living in hellish conditions and on charity, she offered to assist the prosecution.  This defendant does not deserve to be sent back to prison. 

105.  Taking everything into account, I take a starting point of 14 months’ imprisonment for the 2nd defendant for Charges 1, 2, 4 and 7.  I would have taken the same starting point of 15 months imposed on the 3rd defendant, but for the conditions the 2nd defendant has been living in whilst awaiting trial. 

106.  I will afford her a discount of 45 per cent to reflect her intention to give evidence for the prosecution.

107.  After that discount is applied and rounded down to the 2nd defendant’s benefit, I will impose a term of imprisonment of 7 months for each charge.  Her situation, role and benefits obtained were very different from the 1st defendant, so much less serious.

108.  I also consider her role was aiding and abetting the 1st defendant in the money laundering charges.  I will therefore order all these terms of imprisonment to be served concurrently.  Therefore, the 2nd defendant will serve a total sentence of 7 months’ imprisonment.