HKSAR v. RAI RAJ MANI

DCCC 1134/2024

[2025] HKDC 1646

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1134 OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to 3 charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455.

Charge 1 (Welab Bank Limited)

2.  The offence dates were from 17 April 2022 to 26 June 2022  .

3.  The amount involved was HK$5,655,793.87.

Charge 2 (Ant Bank Limited)

4.  The offence dates were from 17 April 2022 to 10 May 2022.

5.  The amount involved was HK$1,199,806.00.

Charge 3 (Mox Bank Limited)

6.  The offence date were from 14 February 2022 to 27 June 2022.

7.  The amount involved was HK$1,386,655.72.

Summary of facts

8.  In March 2022, PW1 was duped by an imposter who claimed to be a staff from the Department of Health and alleged that she has been to a shopping mall which was a subject of a quarantine order. PW1 denied being there.

9.  A few days later, the imposter claimed that he was an official from Beijing Municipal Public Security Bureau and accused PW1 involved in some money laundering activities.

10.  In order to clear her name, the imposters asked PW1 to disclose all her assets in the banks and to open two new accounts and to activate the online banking services by using the passwords provided by the imposter.

11.  PW1 was asked to transfer HK$60,671,500 into the said accounts.

12.  Subsequently, PW1 lost contact with the imposters and realized she has been cheated and reported the matter to the police.

13.  Investigation revealed that PW1’s fund were transferred to 14 stooge accounts between April 2022 to May 2022 by the imposters.

14.  Some of the funds as stated in the 3 charges were remitted to three different banks of charge 1, 2 and 3.

15.  The Defendant was arrested on 25 May 2023. Under caution, he admitted for selling his 3 accounts to “Ar Lum” for HK$4,500. He was introduced to “Ar Lum” by a friend.

16.  The Defendant opened the 3 accounts in the following dates :-

(a) Charge 1 and 2 on 17 April 2022;

(b) Charge 3 on 14 Febuary 2022.

17.  At all material time, the Defendant has dealt with the funds in these 3 accounts as the e-statement showed that there were interbank transfer between the accounts and he was still in control of these accounts.

Background of the Defendant

18.  The Defendant has a clear record. He is 43 years old. He is divorced. In June 2023, he was unemployed; he previously worked as a part-time cleaner. He was introduced to “Ar Lum” by his friend.

Sentence

19.  The maximum sentence for money laundering offence is one of 14 years’ imprisonment.

20.  The defence accepted that there is no sentencing guideline for this type of offence, but is aware of those sentencing factors to be considered as stated in the case of HKSAR v Hse Yu Yi[1] and HKSAR v A male known as BOMA AMASO[2].

21.  As stated in the case of Secretary of Justice v Siu Yun Yee[3] that immediate custodial sentence for offences of money laundering are required for a first time offender. Obviously, money laundering is a serious offence.

22.  In the present case :-

(1) The period covered for each charge is as follows:-

(i) Charge 1 – 10 weeks[4];

(ii) Charge 2 - just under a month[5];

(iii) Charge 3 - 4.5 months[6].

(2) The total amount being laundered is about HK$8.3 million :-

(i) Charge 1 – HK$5.7 million;

(ii) Charge 2 – HK$1.2 million;

(iii) Charge 3 – HK$1.4 million.

23.  The Defendant received a total of HK$4,500 as reward for opening the 3 accounts.

24.  The nature of the predicate offence was those of telephone deception. There was no evidence to suggest that the Defendant was involved or had any knowledge about the predicate offence.

25.  The role of the Defendant apart from opening the account, he also dealt with the funds in the 3 accounts as the e-statement showed that there were interbank transfer between the accounts and he was in control of these accounts. 

26.  As said in the judgement of Hsu Yu Yi :-

“The capability of the offences lies in the assistance, support and encouragment offered to the commission of an indictable offence.”

27.  It was held in the case Boma that one of the sentencing factors was the “black money” being laundered.

28.  In Secretary of Justice v Wan Kwok Keung[7], the Court of Appeal held that :-

“The starting point is 3 years years or so where the “black money” involved is between $1 million and 2 million, 4 years or so where it is between $3 million and $6 million and could be over 5 years where it is above 10 million.”

29.  With all these information in mind, I am of the view that the starting point for the individual charges should be as follow:-

Charge	Starting Point	After 1/3 Discount
1	4.5 years	3 years
2	2 years	16 months
3	2 years	16 months

Enhancement

30.  The Prosecution seeks an enhancement of the sentence[8] on the ground that this specific offence was prevalent and the nature and extend of the harm have caused to the community.

31.  The defence resists such an application.

32.  In support of his argument, Mr Sherry relied on Archbold 2025 at para 5-500 that the power to enhance sentence is extraordinary and is an exceptional measure “to be used sparingly”. He also emphasized that the power of enhancement should be exercised with restraint.

33.  The defence also referred to s.27(11) that it is not required “automatically” to enhance the sentence as the Court has a discretionary power not to do so.

34.  s.27(11) reads as follows :-

“When it passes a sentence on the person for the relevant specified offence and may, if it thinks fit, pass a sentence on the person for that offence that is more severe than the sentence it would, in the absence of such matter, have passed.”

35.  The defence submitted that :-

“In deciding whether it will enhance the sentence, the Court should go back and look again at what has been alleged in the summary of facts, and how they related to the limited role played by the defendant as passive second layer account holder, (this has been considered in the starting point) who could never have foreseen the extent of the offending for which he is now going to be punished.”

36.  The fact that the Defendant was ignorant of the seriousness of the consequences of committing the present offence is not a justification to decline the prosecution’s application.

37.  The defence also said that the sentence has already built into it a deterrent element, even without enhancement.

38.  However as said in the HKSAR v Wang Quanwen[9] :-

“The whole purpose of enhancement is to create a sentence which contains additional elements of punishment and deterrence.”

39.  In HKSAR v Li Kin Keung[10], McWalters JJ said :-

“27. Enhancement of sentence is a power that is exercised by a court in response to information furnished to it under section 27(2)(a) – (e). The purpose of the enhancement power, in terms of sentencing principle, is to deter. Use of the enhancement power can only be justified where the information furnished to the court establishes a need for a sentence containing a greater level of general deterrence…”

40.  Guidelines to consider the enhancement application can be found in Tam Wai Pio[11], which set out in clear terms:

“(1) (a) the appropriate starting point having regard to the part played by the defendant, and

          (b) the sentence that the court would have imposed taking into account the defendant's mitigation and totality;

(2) whether the specified offence was an organized crime within the meaning of section 2 of the Ordinance;

(3) whether the crime calls for an enhancement of the sentence under the terms of section 27(11) having regard to the information supplied by the prosecution to the court under section 27(2)(a) to (e) or section 27(8) or the general nature of the organized crime itself;

(4) if enhancement is called for, the percentage increase by way of enhancement of the sentence.”

41.  According to HKSAR v Wong Fung Ming and Another[12] that in determining the enhancement, the Court has to regard to whether the nature of offence is prevalent at the time of sentence in order to deter others from committing similar offences. As such, the purpose of imposing an enhanced sentence is to serve a deterrent effect in order to send such a strong message to the public.

42.  Otherwise, it will definitely send a wrong message to the public especially those masterminds hide behind the scenes and continue to recruit others to open more bank accounts to launder black money.

43.  The defence does not dispute that the nature of the present offence is prevalent.

44.  As stated in para 18 of the statement that anti-money laundering regime in Hong Kong is hampered by the prevalence of stooges for money laundering activities as follows :-

“(a) There is a negative impact to the reputation of Hong Kong as a well-known international financial hub.

(b) Because of the multiple layers of “shields” concealing the identity of the masterminds, making it difficult for the police to identify the mastermind behind the scheme.

(c) The increasing number of stooge accounts encourage more crimes to be committed as the mastermind could easily get away from being arrested.

(d) That allow the culprit to make use of their ill-gotten gains to extend their sphere to engage in a wider range of illegal activities.

(e) People with less awareness of the consequences of selling their bank accounts are more likely to fall prey to the traps set up by the culprit to surrender their account for reward.”

45.  According to the data presented by Chief Inspector Li’s statement, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the present offence remains prevalent. I accept the Prosecution’s application. I also consider that an enhancement rate of 1/3 is appropriate.

46.  The formula of the sentences of the present case is as follows :-

Charge	Starting point	1/3 discount	1/3 enhancement rate	Total
1	4.5 years	36 months	12 months	48 months
2	2 years	16 months	5 months[13] (after round down)	21 months (6 months consecutively to charge 1)
3	2 years	16 months	5 months (after round down)	21 months (6 months consecutively to charge 1)
			TOTAL:	60 months

Totality

47.  I ordered 6 months each from charge 2 and 3 (total 12 months) to run consecutively to charge 1.  The total sentence is 60 months’[14] imprisonment.

48.  Finally, I refuse to exercise my discretion as request by the defence for further deduction of sentence for his clear record because it has all been considered in the 1/3 discount package from the starting point.

Order

49.  The Defendant is ordered to serve a period of 60 months’ imprisonment.