HKSAR v. LI ON YIU

DCCC 1081/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1081 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has been convicted after trial of three money laundering offences.  The amount involved in all three accounts over a period of two years is approximately $16 million. 

2.  I do not intend to repeat the facts of the case, I gave full reasons in my Verdict.  I found that the defendant knew he was money laundering.  He knew that the money in the three accounts were proceeds of illegal bookmaking activities.  There is no other explanation as to why the majority of the deposits and withdrawals took place on a Monday and a Thursday.  Monday would follow a weekend of racing and football matches and Thursday follows an evening of horseracing and possibly some football matches. It is a reasonable inference.  I was sure the accounts were not, as the defendant gave evidence, used for legitimate business dealings.  Defendant did not show they were legal transactions nor not money laundering.

3.  It is not his burden to show the funds were not money laundering but after I rejected the defendant’s evidence, I was left with the prosecution’s evidence which showed more than ample evidence he knew that he was money laundering and if he did not know, there were ample reasonable grounds to believe that the property he dealt with were proceeds of an indictable offence. 

4.  I have heard full mitigation.  The defendant is 56 years old, divorced and presently unemployed.  He has a 20 year old son who is working.  Defendant is not a highly educated man.  Defendant is not a man of clear record but his previous convictions are not similar and old.  His last conviction was more than 20 years ago.  I have also received a letter asking for leniency on the defendant’s behalf from a friend and another letter from World Vision revealing the charitable side of the defendant. Defence counsel has said as much as he can in mitigation.

5.  Money laundering is a serious offence, it carries a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment.  The courts view this offence seriously and have taken a robust and deterrent approach in sentencing.  Money launderers assist criminals to launder money indirectly encouraging them in their criminal activity.  A term of imprisonment is inevitable.

6.  There are no sentencing guidelines for this offence, each case must be decided on its own facts.  In fact, the Court of Appeal has said it is undesirable to give sentencing guidelines in HKSAR v Boma CACC335/2010.  This authority does set out relevant considerations for sentencing.  The relevant ones that apply here are, for example, where the nature of the predicate offence is known.  In here, I accept the prosecution’s submission that it was illegal bookmaking. 

7.  Another relevant consideration would be the defendant’s knowledge, did he have direct knowledge or did he turn a blind eye.  In this case there is no obvious international element to the money laundering nor is there evidence of it being a sophisticated plan or offence.

8.  The length of time of the offence is relevant and in this case two years and the amount involved is significant and relevant, as I have said, approximately 16 million.

9.  The role of the defendant is also relevant. There is no evidence he was directly involved in bookmaking but that he dealt directly with the moneys.  Moreover, he did not use his own account but his sister’s account.

10.  I have looked at the authority referred to by defence counsel, HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, CACC159/2009.  It does discuss sentences imposed in the past for this offence. 

11.  I have taken into account the facts of the case and the defendant’s conduct of the case.  I have considered the defendant’s mitigation and all the relevant considerations I have just referred to and applied them here.  These three charges involve three bank accounts over a period of two years.  I am satisfied that all three relate to the same illegal activity.  I will take a global approach to sentencing.

12.  Having considered all those factors I have just referred to, I will take a starting point for each charge of 3 years’ imprisonment.  I see no reason for any discount to the starting point and accordingly the defendant is sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment for each charge.  I order that all three sentences be served concurrently, a total of 3 years’ imprisonment.