HKSAR v. HUI CHAK YI

CACC 260/2024

[2025] HKCA 760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO 260 OF 2024

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO 452 OF 2023)

_______________

BETWEEN

_______________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.  On 1 November 2024, following a trial before Deputy District Judge David Cheung, the applicant was convicted of the offence of conspiracy to deal with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (Charge 1) and the substantive offence of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (Charge 3). She was sentenced to a total of 4 years and which she ostensibly operated the bank account of a company involved in an investment scam. The first money laundering offence alleged between 1 November 2016 and 13 January 2017, the applicant conspired with others to deal with the sum of HK$6,376,964.78 in the bank account held by United Gold Trading Limited. The second money laundering offence alleged between 29 December 2016 and 22 June 2017, the applicant dealt with the sum of HK$12,097,771.87 in the bank account held by the trading company, U.G.

2.  The applicant applied for leave to appeal against her conviction. In a judgment dated 2 June 2025, I granted her application primarily on the question of the judge’s finding that the underlying business of the two bank accounts was a sham and that the alleged money laundering in the case was where a person lends their bank account to another for the transaction of illicit funds: HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo[1]. She made an application for bail pending appeal, which I refused on 3 June 2025. At the time, the applicant had an outstanding trial for money laundering in DCCC 1155/2024. In that case, it is alleged that the applicant, between 22 October 2020 and 1 April 2021, laundered the sum of HK$42,213,004. In refusing bail, factors that I took into account was that the applicant committed the offence in DCCC 1155/2024 while on bail for DCCC 452/2023; the applicant continued the offence in DCCC 1155/2024 until 1 April 2021 after her arrest for that offence on 10 March 2021; the applicant was involved in three separate money laundering operations and there was a risk of reoffending; and the applicant faced a serious charge in DCCC 1155/2024 with a substantial term of imprisonment upon conviction and was therefore a flight risk.

3.  The applicant re-applies for bail pending appeal. The central issue in this application is that the applicant is alleged to have committed another money laundering offence in DCCC 1155/2024.

4.  Mr Ken Ng, for the applicant, submits that the application for bail pending appeal should be granted. He contends that when the appeal case is considered separately from DCCC 1155/2024, the applicant satisfies both the merit limb and the time served limb for bail pending appeal. He submits that DCCC 1155/2024 is not as serious as it appears from the particulars of the charge. He notes that the only alleged victim in the case complained that he was deceived by his broker into depositing the sum of $300,000 into the bank account concerned on 26 November 2020. He points out that the amount of money involved is a relatively small sum and related to another person. He also points out that the applicant was granted bail in that case on 26 September 2024 without any objection from the prosecution. The relevant terms of the bail included a cash deposit of $30,000 with the surety, provided by the applicant’s mother, of $10,000 cash. The applicant did not fulfil these conditions because she was in custody in relation to the appeal case. However, when granted leave on 2 June 2025, the applicant immediately arranged for payment of the cash amounts in her bail conditions.

5.  Mr Ivan Cheung, for the respondent, very properly acknowledges that the requirements for the grant of bail pending appeal in respect of the appeal case are satisfied. However, he contends that when considering the other District Court case, there is a risk of reoffending and flight by the applicant. He also contends that even though the District Court case involves a predicate offence of $300,000, it is not the correct basis on which to assess the seriousness of the offence. He points out that, as a matter of principle, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove any predicate offence for money laundering. In this case, the amount allegedly involved is more than HK$40 million.

6.  The issue in this application narrows down to the nature of the allegations of the outstanding District Court case, and whether, together with the appeal case, there is a risk of reoffending and flight by the applicant. The applicant was the sole director and shareholder of Fortune Hill Wealth Management Limited, which purportedly invested clients’ funds in trading stocks. She was also the sole signatory of the company’s bank account. On 10 March 2021, she changed the telephone number for the e-banking service to her mobile telephone. From 22 October 2020 to 1 April 2021, there were 63 deposits, amounting HK$42,213,004.08, into the account. Soon after each deposit, there were multiple withdrawals, leaving a small balance in the bank account. Only one person has come forward, alleging that he was swindled out of the funds he deposited with the company, consisting of HK$300,000. The prosecution case is that the applicant lent her name to operate the company and its bank account in circumstances where the financial transactions were plainly illicit.

7.  I have taken into account the fact that the merit limb and the time served limb are satisfied in the appeal case, and that the other District Court case relies on an alleged fraud of a single investor, where the documentation relates to another person. It appears that the prosecution case is based on the same category of case as identified in Wong Chor Wo, for which leave has been granted to the applicant to appeal her convictions in the appeal case. I also note that the applicant was granted bail in the District Court case without opposition from the prosecution. Accordingly, I grant the applicant bail pending appeal on the terms and conditions submitted on her behalf.