HKSAR v. CHENG HO WANG AND ANOTHER

DCCC 1017/2024

[2025] HKDC 1914

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1017 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  There are two defendants in this case (D1 and D2)  and together they are facing a total of 13 charges. D1 is charged with six counts of Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence[1] (“Money Laundering”)  (Charges 1 to 6). Further, D1 and D2 are jointly charged with six counts of Money Laundering (Charges 7 to 12). Lastly, D1 is also charged with a count of Failing to surrender to custody as shall have been appointed[2] (Charge 13).

2.  D1 and D2 pleaded guilty to all the charges and admitted the summary of facts.  They are convicted of the charges accordingly.

Summary of Facts

3.  Between July and August 2021, five citizens fell prey to telephone deception.  Fraudsters claimed they were Mainland law enforcement officials and accused the victims of committing offences in the Mainland.  The victims either made deposits as requested to designated bank accounts or disclosed their account credentials to the fraudsters.  Subsequently, the victims found out funds in their accounts were withdrawn to various accounts.  Feeling deceived, they made reports to the Police.

4.  Upon investigation, the personal accounts of D1 and D2 were found to have received the funds withdrawn from the victims’ accounts, either as first layer accounts or as second or third layer accounts.

5.  The fund flow details of D1’s accounts in relation to Charges 1 to 6 are set out as follows:

(a)  Charge 1 concerns D1’s account at ZA Bank Limited numbered 387889006880628. Between 7 and 15 July 2021, there were 9 deposits in the total sum of HK$717,012 and 10 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$717,000;

(b)  Charge 2 concerns D1’s account at Ant Bank (Hong Kong)  Limited numbered 39375333290291558. Between 11 and 16 August 2021, there were 9 deposits in the total sum of HK$800,033 and 15 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$800,000;

(c)  Charge 3 concerns D1’s account at PAO Bank Limited numbered 7522000131532. Between 13 and 14 August 2021, there were 4 deposits in the total sum of HK$900,010 and 11 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$900,000;

(d)  Charge 4 concerns D1’s account at Fusion Bank Limited numbered 8000435152. Between 9 and 17 August 2021, there were 14 deposits in the total sum of HK$3,000,009 and 36 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$3,000,000;

(e)  Charge 5 concerns D1’s account at Mox Bank Limited numbered 74928338115. Between 6 July and 3 August 2021, there were 33 deposits in the total sum of HK$1,787,393.13 and 39 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$1,787,314; and

(f)  Charge 6 concerns D1’s account at Airstar Bank Limited numbered 885000041806. Between 26 July and 9 August 2021, there were 17 deposits in the total sum of HK$5,100,070 and 37 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$5,100,045.13.

6.  The fund flow details of D2’s account in relation to Charges 7 to 12 are set out as follows:

(a)  Charge 7 concerns D2’s account at Ant Bank Limited numbered 39375333366539492. Between 11 and 18 August 2021, there were 13 deposits in the total sum of HK$740,037 and 20 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$740,005;

(b)  Charge 8 concerns D2’s account at PAO Bank Limited numbered 7522000133958. Between 20 and 30 August 2021, there were 21 deposits in the total sum of HK$2,148,624 and 25 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$2,148,591;

(c)  Charge 9 concerns D2’s account at Livi Bank Limited numbered 388756012385166. Between 13 and 20 August 2021, there were 13 deposits in the total sum of HK$1,500,016 and 12 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$1,500,000;

(d)  Charge 10 concerns D2’s account at Welab Bank Limited numbered 1002531098. Between 30 July and 4 August 2021, there were 19 deposits in the total sum of HK$1,732,028 and 28 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$1,732,012;

(e)  Charge 11 concerns D2’s account at Mox Bank Limited numbered 74980544121. Between 30 July and 3 August 2021, there were 15 deposits in the total sum of HK$949,548 and 21 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$949,516; and

(f)  Charge 12 concerns D2’s account at ZA Bank Limited numbered 387887007505810. Between 4 and 15 August 2021, there were 30 deposits in the total sum of HK$2,653,888.2 and 25 withdrawals in the total sum of HK$2,653,811.

7.  On 2 September 2022, D2 was arrested by the Police.  Under caution, D2 admitted that he opened an account at ZA bank and gave it to a friend named “Ah Wai” to use for money remittance purpose.  The Police later conducted a video recorded interview with D2, under caution D2 said the followings:

(a)  He and D1 were friends;

(b)  D1 knew he was unemployed and asked him to open some bank accounts to receive and transfer money for another friend. He was told that friend was carrying on business of money remittance for currency exchange;

(c)  As requested, D2 opened an account with various banks and passed the account passwords to D1; and

(d)  He met with D1 and another person to discuss about the job. He was told that money would be deposited into his accounts and he would be instructed to transfer the money to designated accounts. He would be paid 4% of the remittance amount as reward.

8.  On 4 May 2023, D1 was arrested by the Police.  Under caution, D1 said the followings:

(a)  In mid-2021, he acquainted a person called “Ah Lung”;

(b)  Ah Lung asked him if D1 was interested to earn quick money by opening online bank accounts and pass the account details and passwords to Ah Lung. Ah Lung said D1 would be given 5% of the money remitted through his accounts;

(c)  He knew D2 was unemployed so he introduced D2 to Ah Lung to do this job together;

(d)  He and D2 later met with Ah Lung to discuss about the job.

(e)  He admitted that he gave his various accounts for others to use.

9.  Concerning Charge 13, D1 was charged and brought before a magistrate at the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts under the case of ESCC 2792/2023.  D1 was granted bail with condition that he had to attend the next hearing.  The case was subsequently adjourned for a few occasions and at the hearing on 20 June 2024 D1 was absent.  As a result, a warrant of arrest was issued against D1.

10.  On 25 June 2024, Police officer was able to contact D1.  D1 was told to report to the Police station as soon as possible.  On 26 June 2024, D1 attended the Police station and was arrested accordingly.  Later D1 was interviewed by Police officer. Under caution D1 said he was feeling unwell for 2 days and was unable to attend the court hearing.

Mitigation

11.  D1 is 26 years of age and single.  He was born locally and received education up to Form 6. Since graduated in 2016, D1 has been working as a barista earning around HK$15,000 per month.  He lives with his mother in a public housing unit.  He has a clear record.

12.  D2 is also 26 years of age and single.  He was born locally and received education up to Form 6.  He has been working as a warehouse worker at a hospital earning around HK$14,000 per month.  He lives with his mother and a sister.  He also has a clear record.

13.  Defence submitted that both defendants are genuinely remorseful now.  They both made full confession to the Police and pleaded guilty to all charges.  It was also submitted that both D1 and D2 had no knowledge of any predicate offences underlying the charges.  They were not involved in the underlying telephone deceptions and were only being used by others to transfer the money.  Further, it was submitted that the duration of the offences was short.  All transactions were made within about a month’s time.  Lastly, Defence urged the court to consider both defendants are of clear record.  They are both hardworking young men who made a serious mistake.  Defence urged the court to be as lenient as possible.

14.  As to the Prosecution’s application for enhancement of sentence, counsel for both defendants raised no objection and both asked the court to adopt a lower percentage of enhancement given both defendants are remorseful and are first offenders.

Sentencing Consideration

15.  There is no need to emphasize that money laundering is a very serious offence.  Not only does it encourage criminal activities indirectly, but it also helps criminals to legitimize the proceeds of crime.  The Court of Appeal in cases like HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi[3], HKSAR v Wan Kwok Keung[4] and HKSAR v Boma[5] has already set out the sentencing principles for this offence.  The factors to be taken into account are:

(a)  the amount of money involved;

(b)  the level of participation of the defendant;

(c)  the nature of the predicate offence;

(d)  the defendant’s knowledge of the nature of the predicate offence;

(e)  whether there is any international element;

(f)  the sophistication of the offence; and

(g)  duration of the offence.

16.  Based on the facts admitted by D1 and D2, the court is prepared to accept that both of them did not have any knowledge of the predicate offence.  However, they both involved in transferring the money out of their accounts, therefore their participation cannot be described as the lowest.  The amount of money involved in each charge is not particularly large but the total amount involved in particular for D1 is substantial.

17.  On the other hand, the court has considered the personal background of both defendants. They are both of clear record and showed their remorse by pleading guilty to all charges.

18.  Considered all circumstances, for both defendants, I adopt 36 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for Charges 1 to 12.  They pleaded guilty to the charges and are entitled to one-third discount.

19.  Prosecution has furnished with the court a witness statement dated 31 October 2025 of Chief Inspector LI Yiu Nam of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment of the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, Hong Kong Police Force.  The information provided by Chief Inspector LI shows the prevalence of money laundering offence in recent years in Hong Kong and the extent of harm caused to the community.  Considered all the information I am satisfied that enhancement of sentence is appropriate in this case.  Having regard to the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that 25% enhancement is appropriate.

20.  As a result, the sentence for each of Charges 1 to 12 is 30 month’s imprisonment.

21.  Concerning Charge 13, D1 was arrested 6 days after he failed to attend the court hearing and it is not in dispute that he voluntarily reported to the Police Station after the Police contacted him. The disruption caused to the court proceedings, if any, seems minimal.  Considered all the circumstances, I adopt 6 weeks’ imprisonment as the starting point for Charge 13.  After giving one-third discount for the guilty plea, D1 is sentenced to 4 weeks’ imprisonment for Charge 13.

22.  Lastly, the court has to consider the totality of the sentence.  In arriving a suitable total sentence, the court has considered all the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the total amount involved for D1 is over HK$21 million and for D2 over HK$9 million, that both defendants are of clear record and the offences were committed back in 2021 when both defendants were still quite young. Considered all these, for D1, I order 2 months’ imprisonment of Charges 2 to 10 to be served consecutively to other charges, making a total sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment.  For D2, I order 2 months’ imprisonment of Charges 8 to 11 to be served consecutively to other Charges, making a total sentence of 38 months’ imprisonment.