HKSAR v. CRUZ MICHELLE SANGUYO

DCCC 435/2015

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 435 OF 2015

____________

____________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

Introduction

1.  The defendant first appeared in the District Court on 23 June 2015 facing one charge of dealing with property knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe the property represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance.[1] 

2.  The property referred to in the charge is $4,994,346.37, being monies withdrawn between 13 July 2010 and 30 November 2012 from the defendant’s bank account held with the Bank of China. 

3.  On 17 July 2015 leave was granted to amend the charge sheet by including forty nine charges laid in the alternative.  The forty nine charges relate to forty nine withdrawals made from the account during the period 23 July 2010 and 15 November 2012, including the first and last withdrawals.  The forty nine charges do not however cover all the withdrawals made from the account.

4.  At the commencement of the trial in November last year the defendant pleaded not guilty to all charges.  Mr Connelly submitted that charge 1 was duplicitous. Following the decision of the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Salim Majed[2], I ruled charge 1 was duplicitous and quashed the charge. 

5.  I note subsequently the Court of Final Appeal held that where a number of acts of money laundering are connected in such a way that they can be regarded as forming part of the same transaction or criminal enterprise then it will be legitimate to charge them in a single count unless there is a risk of injustice to the defendant[3]. No application has been made arising from the decision of the Court of Final Appeal. 

6.  The prosecution elected to proceed on the forty nine alternative charges.

Background

7.  On 13 July 2010 the defendant opened the Bank of China account and was the sole signatory of that account.  The account was closed on 30 November 2012.   During the period of operation there were 131 deposits and 330 withdrawals.  Deposits totalled HK$5,066,523.64, all of which, save for $176.33, was withdrawn. 

Prosecution case

8.  The prosecution case in summary is that for the period 2009-2013 the defendant was earning around $8,000 per month, which sum was not commensurate with the monies deposited in the account.  The prosecution therefore say the only inference to draw is that the monies, less salary, passing through the account were the proceeds of an indictable offence and that the defendant dealt with the monies having reasonable grounds to believe the money, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represented the proceeds of an indictable offence. 

Defence case

9.  In summary the defence case is that the defendant at the same time as using the Bank of China account also lent the account to her employer Maurice Ng, who the defendant had known since 1994 and who since 2006 had cohabited with her mother. Save on the occasions when Maurice Ng asked the defendant to withdraw cash from the account the defendant was not aware of withdrawals made by Maurice Ng from the account or the source of the monies withdrawn by Maurice Ng. 

10.  The defendant trusted Maurice Ng that he was using the account for his business and did not know or believe that the monies were the proceeds of an indictable offence.  Specifically with regard to one withdrawal,[4] this was done at the request of a customer of her employer, who the defendant also trusted.

No case to answer

11.  The forty nine charges relate to forty nine withdrawals including the first and last withdrawal.  I was satisfied that there was no evidence before the court from which an inference could be drawn that the defendant dealt with the first withdrawal, in the sum of $500, having reasonable grounds to believe the money, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.  I therefore ruled no case to answer. 

Evidence

12.  No prosecution witnesses have been called.  All the prosecution evidence has been admitted[5] pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance[6].  I will refer to the admitted facts as I review the evidence[7]. 

13.  The defendant elected to give evidence and called two witnesses, Ngai Hoi Kwan, a primary school classmate of Maurice Ng and Ku Suk Fong, the sister-in-law of Maurice Ng, to whom monies were transferred from the Bank of China account by way of e-banking.  Facts were also admitted pursuant to section 65C of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance including the account opening and customer information of the bank accounts of Ngai Hoi Kwan and Ku Suk Fong[8].

14.  Admitted in evidence is that the defendant has a clear criminal record in Hong Kong.[9]  I direct myself as to good character in accordance with the decision in HKSAR v Tang Siu Man[10]. 

15.  In reaching my verdict I remind myself of the burden and standard of proof and that the burden is on the prosecution throughout.  The defendant has to prove nothing.  I direct myself that I must be sure of the guilt of the defendant on each charge before I can convict, each charge to be considered separately.  On the other hand if the court thinks that the defence evidence pointing to innocence is true or may be true, it would follow that the defence has raised sufficient doubt in the prosecution case and the defendant entitled to be acquitted. 

16.  I remind myself that when drawing inferences from the evidence a court may only draw an inference if that inference is the only reasonable inference to draw from the proved facts.  If from the facts proved there is a reasonable inference to draw against a defendant as well as one in his favour, the adverse inference cannot be drawn.  

17.  I have carefully considered all the evidence together with the submissions of Mr Chau and Mr Connelly.

Prosecution evidence

18.  Admitted in evidence is the opening of the Bank of China account by the defendant[11]; the total deposits and withdrawals from the account[12]; and the closing of the account[13]. Full details of the bank account are contained in the banker’s affirmation of Mok Kwok Ling[14].

19.  The prosecution also submitted a very helpful fund flow chart showing all the deposits and withdrawals from the account.  The chart is attached to Mr Chau’s opening and was amended as the trial progressed to include further information and to correct errors and omissions. 

20.  Also admitted in evidence are the employers’ returns for the relevant period showing that the defendant did not have income commensurate with the amounts passing through the Bank of China account[15].

21.  The travel movement record of the defendant[16]for the relevant period has also been admitted[17]. This shows that the defendant was in Hong Kong at the time the Bank of China account was opened; and when all the withdrawals, subject of the charges, were made except charges 39 and 50. 

22.  The bank account was closed on 30 November 2012[18]. The last entry in the movement record shows the defendant departing Hong Kong on 14 November 2012.  According to the defendant she did not return to Hong Kong until February 2013.  The defendant was therefore not in Hong Kong when the account was closed.   

Dealing with property

23.  The actus reus of the offence is dealing with property.  Monies passing through a bank account are clearly property[19].

24.  Dealing in relation to property is defined in section 2(1) of the Ordinance and includes, (a) receiving or acquiring the property; (b) concealing or disguising the property (whether by concealing or disguising its nature, source, location, disposition, movement or ownership or any rights with respect to it or otherwise); and (c) disposing of or converting the property. 

25.  Fifteen cash withdrawals were made by the defendant [20]. The defendant has clearly dealt with these monies.  Admitted in evidence is that the defendant is the sole signatory of the bank account[21], from which an inference may be drawn that the defendant dealt with the other monies passing through her account.  The defendant says the other withdrawals were made by Maurice Ng and that she was unaware of them.  If this is true or may be true the defendant has not dealt with these monies[22].      

Proceeds of an indictable offence

26.  The prosecution do not have to prove the property represents the proceeds of an indictable offence[23].     

27.  In respect of charges 37 & 38 monies were transferred to the Bank of China account from an account held with the Chiyu Bank in the name of Lymington Hardy Consultants.  Admitted in evidence is that Lymington Hardy Consultants had been registered as a business by falsely stating Chow Chi Ming was the proprietor; giving a false address and that the account had been opened using a lost identity card in the name of Chow Chi Ming[24].

28.  The prosecution submit that the only inference to draw is that the Chiyu Bank account was used to launder the proceeds of crime[25].  I disagree. Although the bank was deceived into opening the account this does not mean all the monies in the account were the proceeds of crime.  The bank account could for example have been used to hide “clean” money from the Inland Revenue.  

29.  Further with regard to charge 38 the source of the money is known.  At the request of a business colleague Mr Wong Yick Piu transferred US$16,800 to the multi currency account of Lymington Hardy Consultants.  The money was then transferred to the Bank of China account[26].

30.  If Mr Wong had been deceived into transferring the monies then the monies would be the proceeds of crime.  Notwithstanding Mr Wong has not been repaid there is no evidence Mr Wong was deceived into transferring the money.  If anything the admitted evidence therefore points to the monies being “clean” funds.  

Knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe

31.  The mens rea of dealing has two parts “knowing” or “having reasonable grounds to believe”.  The prosecution proceed on the basis that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe.   

32.  In HKSAR v Yeung Ka Sing, Carson[27] the Court of Final Appeal confirmed their earlier decision in HKSAR v Pang Hung Fai[28]that the better and less complicated test for determining whether the accused had reasonable grounds to believe was that propounded by the Appeal Committee of the Court of Final Appeal in Seng Yuet Fong v HKSAR,[29] namely that:

“To convict, the jury had to find that the accused had grounds for believing; and there was the additional requirement that the grounds must be reasonable: That is, that anyone looking at those grounds objectively would so believe.”

33.  In deciding whether the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe the applicable standard is would those grounds lead to the belief and not could those grounds lead to the belief and in determining this the defendant’s belief, perception or prejudice are to be considered and given such weight as is warranted.[30] 

34.  Clearly the money passing through the account was not commensurate with the defendant’s income.  The money was withdrawn shortly after being deposited, often within minutes.  In the absence of an explanation these facts may give rise to the inference that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe the monies passing through her account were the proceeds of an indictable offence.  The defendant has given an explanation.  I therefore turn to consider the defence evidence.

Defence evidence

35.  In summary the defendant testified that she was born and educated in the Philippines.  After graduating from High School in 1994 the defendant came to Hong Kong to join her parents.  The defendant worked together with her parents in a restaurant.  After two years the defendant returned to the Philippines to study computer science. 

36.  After graduating in 1998 the defendant came back to Hong Kong and continued working with her parents in the same restaurant.  During the day the defendant would also work as a clerk in various finance companies.  The defendant continued working in Hong Kong until 2009.

37.  In the meantime the defendant had married in the Philippines in 2006 and had one daughter.  Both the husband and daughter lived in the Philippines and therefore in 2009 the defendant returned to the Philippines to be with her husband and daughter. 

The Bank of China account

38.  The defendant, who was by now the holder of a permanent Hong Kong identity card, resumed living in Hong Kong in March 2010.  In July 2010 the defendant started to work for Fund Star Trading Co.  The defendant opened the Bank of China account so that her salary could be paid into the account.  The bank account was also used for her savings; to remit money to her husband and to apply for a dependant visa for her husband to come to Hong Kong. 

39.  Fund Star sold clothing since the 1990s and from 2007 operated a foreign exchange and remittance service.  The shop was situated in Tsim Sha Tsui and was run by Maurice Ng Chip Choi[31].

40.  The defendant first met Maurice Ng in 1994 when he went to the restaurant where the defendant worked[32]. In 2004 the defendant’s mother and father separated after which Maurice Ng became a friend of the defendant’s mother.  From 2004-2006 Maurice Ng always went to the restaurant and took the defendant and her mother to other places to eat.  In 2006 Maurice Ng began cohabiting with the defendant’s mother. 

41.  In 2010 when the defendant began to work for Maurice Ng she was also living together with her mother and Maurice Ng. The defendant had a good relationship with Maurice Ng and trusted him.  Notwithstanding the relationship between her mother and Maurice Ng, the defendant throughout her evidence referred to Maurice Ng as “the boss”. 

42.  The defendant would help selling clothes and assist in the money exchange and remittance business.  The defendant’s mother, Maurice Ng and an elderly Chinese lady also worked in the shop.  The daily turnover was around $400,000-$500,000. Maurice Ng was responsible for handling the banking matters of the business.    

Use of the account by Maurice Ng

43.  In November 2010 Maurice Ng asked the defendant if he could use her bank account because he had no account with the Bank of China, which he said had been closed because he had a money exchange business.  Maurice Ng asked for the password for the ATM card and said he needed to use the card because sometimes the money exchange business ran out of money.  Maurice Ng would usually keep the ATM card and when the defendant needed to use the ATM card she would borrow the card from Maurice Ng[33].Maurice Ng also said he needed to use internet banking and on occasions asked to borrow the defendant’s phone to make a bank transaction. 

44.  The defendant was taken through the withdrawals subject of the charges.  The fifteen cash withdrawals made by the defendant were made at the request of Maurice Ng [34]. The defendant was unaware of all the other withdrawals, which she says must have been made by Maurice Ng.       

45.  Twenty five withdrawals were made by either e-banking[35] or tel-banking transfers[36].  These include the two withdrawals when the defendant was out of Hong Kong[37].  Admitted in evidence is that when the bank account was opened internet banking services were provided[38], the banker’s affirmation stating that the defendant requested for Internet Banking/Phone Banking services[39]. 

46.  The defendant could not remember filling in the account opening form.  The defendant testified she did not ask for internet and phone banking services and did not use these services.  It was Maurice Ng who asked for these services. Only after her arrest did the defendant become aware of how many times Maurice Ng had used e-banking services. 

47.  The remaining eight withdrawals were all ATM cash withdrawals in the sum of $10,000[40].  The defendant recalls that on one occasion she helped Maurice Ng withdraw $10,000 from the ATM because the shop had run out of cash.  Apart from this occasion the defendant did not make any of these withdrawals. 

48.  Maurice Ng had told the defendant he needed to withdraw the money from her mother’s account. On a separate occasion the defendant’s mother told her that Maurice Ng had once used her bank account for the business of Fund Star.   The defendant did not ask her mother and her mother did not tell her why Maurice Ng needed to use her account[41].

49.  Save for Ku Suk Fong, who the defendant knew was the sister-in-law of Maurice Ng, and that she had seen Christopher Voong once in the shop, the defendant did not know any of the persons who deposited money into the account and to whom Maurice Ng transferred the money.  In cross-examination the defendant said she had once met Ngai Hoi Kwan, who was a schoolmate of Maurice Ng. 

50.  The defendant throughout her evidence repeatedly said she trusted Maurice Ng.  The defendant believed Maurice Ng used the account for his business, for a good purpose and did not believe any of the monies withdrawn for Maurice Ng were the proceeds of crime.

Charges 37 & 38 – Lymington Hardy Consultants.

51.  The defendant did not know that the sum of $54,100 was transferred from the account of Lymington Hardy Consultants, a company she knew nothing about.  Acting on the instructions of Maurice Ng the defendant withdrew $54,080, which she gave to Maurice Ng[42].

52.  Two days later a further sum of $122,600 was transferred, again from the account of Lymington Hardy Consultants.  The defendant withdrew $122,000 of this sum for George, a customer of the shop.  The defendant had known George for several months, George having on four to five occasions exchanged money in the shop and remitted money through Western Union. 

53.  George asked the defendant for help.  George said he did not have a bank account and asked the defendant if he could use her account so a business partner could transfer US$15,000 to him.  The defendant trusted George because he was a businessman who had sent money to the shop through Western Union.  The defendant gained the impression George was friendly and a good man.  The defendant knew his name from having seen his passport, which was submitted when remitting money.  A copy of the passport together with a copy of the remittance would be kept by the shop for six years. 

54.  The defendant agreed and the next day withdrew $122,000 which she gave to George.  This left a balance of $600.  The defendant could not remember if she checked the balance of her account when withdrawing the money because she did not have the habit of checking her account.  Neither could the defendant remember withdrawing the $600 from the ATM the following day.

55.  No arrangements were made with George for the balance of $600 nor was there any subsequent discussion with George about the balance when he later came to the shop to exchange money.  The defendant did not believe the monies withdrawn for George were the proceeds of crime and did not tell Maurice Ng about this because she thought he already knew. 

Closing of the account

56.  In November 2012 the defendant received a letter from the bank asking her to close the account.  On 14 November 2012 the defendant went to the Philippines and only closed the account when she returned to Hong Kong in February 2013.  The defendant received the balance of $176.63, which she gave to Maurice Ng who told her to keep the money.   

Discussion

57.  The prosecution submit the evidence the defendant allowed Maurice Ng to use her account for his business is not worthy of belief and should be rejected. Whilst aspects of the defendant’s evidence are far from convincing, for example who kept the ATM card; the obtaining of the internet and phone banking services; when and how frequent the defendant checked her account; and that the defendant was unable to adequately explain her expenditure each month, there is independent evidence that Maurice Ng did use her account.

Ngai Hoi Kwan (DW1)

58.  The bank records show that the sum of $333,023 was transferred to Ngai Hoi Kwan on 20 December 2010.  Mr Ngai testified that this sum was part of the proceeds from the sale of property on the Mainland.  

59.  Knowing there were restrictions on bringing money into Hong Kong Mr Ngai asked Maurice Ng to help him remit the money to Hong Kong.  Maurice Ng was the primary school classmate of Mr Ngai and someone Mr Ngai knew was dealing in money exchange.  Maurice Ng gave Mr Ngai a Mainland bank account number to deposit the money from which the money would be remitted to Hong Kong and transferred to Mr Ngai. 

60.  Although Mr Ngai had met the defendant once at Fund Star he did not know the money was transferred from the defendant’s account and never discussed with her about the remittance.   

Ku Suk Fong (DW2)

61.  The bank records also show that on seven occasions between 3 January 2011 and 19 March 2012 monies ranging from $100-$4,000 were transferred to Ku Suk Fong[43].  Ku Suk Fong testified that in 2009 she lent $300,000 to her brother-in-law Maurice Ng. Whenever Maurice Ng had money he would make repayments to his sister-in-law. Madam Ku did not know repayment was made from the defendant’s account. 

62.  Although these payments only represent a small part of the transactions in the bank account and as Mr Chau rightly points out are not the subject of any charge, they do as stated earlier provide independent evidence that the defendant allowed Maurice Ng to use her account.  In addition there is other evidence that tends to point to the account being used by Maurice Ng for his business rather than for money laundering.

Internet banking/phone banking

63.  The defendant testified she never used internet or phone banking services.  There was no use of internet or phone banking services for the first few months after the account was opened.  The first e-banking transfer in the sum of $40,898.48 was made on 17 December 2010, just over five months after the account was opened.  The apparent change in the use of the account is consistent with the defendant’s evidence that in November 2010 Maurice Ng asked to use her account. 

64.  The first e-banking transfer is the subject of charge 3.  At 15:32 on 17 December 2010 the sum of $38,900 was deposited into the account by ATM.  Thirteen minutes later the sum of $40,898.48 is transferred to the account of Chen Xinyan. The defendant testified she did not know Chen Xinyan and knew nothing about either the deposit or the transfer which must therefore have been conducted by Maurice Ng. 

65.  What is unusual about this transaction is not only was more money transferred than was deposited but also the amount actually transferred $40,898.48.  Whilst depositing and transferring amounts including cents may make tracing the money more difficult it is unlikely a money launderer would deal in cents.  The amount is more consistent with money exchange.  The evidence therefore rather than pointing to money laundering lends some support to the defendant’s evidence she allowed Maurice Ng to use the account for his business.

66.  Two further sums were transferred to the account of Chen Xinyan: $85,206.75[44] and $142,511.00[45].  The source of the monies was from the account of Voong Hiu King.  These sums can also be said to be inconsistent with money laundering, in particular $85,206.75. 

The accounts of Zheng Shurong & Voong Hiu King

67.  From 17 December 2010 to the closing of the account apart from salary, $6000 payment from the Government and interest, there were another 105 deposits.  Of these twenty four were cash deposits totalling $242,500; eighty were transfers[46] from identified accounts totalling $4,553,506.98 and one was a transfer of $215 from an account which has not been identified[47].

68.  Of the twenty four cash deposits only four can be said to be relatively substantial: $80,000; $73,500; $38,500 and $18,000.  The remainder of the cash deposits range between $100 and $4,500.  The majority of the transfers were from the accounts of Voong Hiu King (twenty four transfers) and the account of Sanguyo Elena P (forty transfers).  On twenty one occasions monies were transferred to the account of Zheng Shurong.

69.  Following the cash deposits of $80,000; $73,500 and $38,500 the sums of $79,918.27; $73,442.35 and $38,500 were transferred to the account of Zheng Shurong[48].  Again the defendant says she knew nothing about these transactions and did not know Zheng Shurong.

70.  Money was transferred to the account of Zheng Shurong a further eighteen times, including transfers in the sums of $108,445.98; $46,504.74; $58,218.39; $94,670.65; $77,134.78; $65,133.33; $98,818.80; $123,635.91; $74,451.21; $87,122.16; $19,613.02 and $35,684.01.  These transfers are the subject of twelve charges.[49]. A total of $1,199,912.93 was transferred to the account of Zheng Shurong.

71.  The source of the monies on most occasions was from the account of Voong Hiu King. Money was transferred from the account of Voong Hiu King on twenty four occasions totalling $1,471,697.  The defendant testified that Voong Hiu King was a customer of the shop, who was always seen talking to Maurice Ng.  The defendant did not know anything about the transactions involving the account of Voong Hiu King. 

72.  As with the transfers to the account of Chen Xinyan the transfer of these amounts to the account ofZheng Shurong are more consistent with money exchange than money laundering and therefore lend some support to the defendant’s evidence she allowed Maurice Ng to use the account for his business. 

73.  On 9 March 2011 $170,397.00 was transferred from the account of Voong Hiu King. Forty two minutes later $167,924.30 was transferred to the account of King Lik Source Trading Co[50]. A further six minutes later the sum of $2,073.00 was transferred back to the account of Voong Hiu King.  It would seem most unlikely that a money launderer would return money.  Similarly on 10 August 2011 the sum of $606.79 was transferred to the deposit account of Voong Hiu King fifty eight minutes after $65,820 had been transferred from the current account of Voong Hiu King[51]. 

74.  Although not the subject of any charges there are other transactions involving the accounts of Zheng Shurong & Voong Hiu King which are most unlikely to be those of a money launderer. 

75.  On 17 September 2011 seven hours after $98,818.80[52] was transferred to the account of Zheng Shurong a further sum of $29.00 was transferred[53].  It is most unlikely a money launderer would deal in such a small sum of money.

76.  On 5 November 2011 at 20:00 the sum of $17,000 was transferred from the account of Zheng Shurong.  Five minutes later at 20:05 the sum of $12,000 was transferred back to Zheng Shurong[54]. Again it would seem unlikely that a money launderer would return money. 

77.  Money was also transferred to the account of Voong Hiu King on seven occasions ranging between $90.00 and $2,073 and totalling $5,344.42[55].  None of these sums would, in the circumstances of this case, give rise to suspicion.

Sanguyo Elena P

78.  The cash deposit of $18,000 was transferred to the account of Sanguyo Elena P[56].  Sanguyo Elena P is the mother of the defendant.  Monies were transferred to the mother’s account on five occasions totalling $35,800, including the $18,000.  Forty transfers were made from the mother’s account totalling $1,750,069.  Twenty withdrawals are the subject of eighteen charges[57].

79.  The defendant says, apart from one occasion when Maurice Ng told her he needed to withdraw $10,000 from her mother’s account, she was unaware that money had been transferred from her mother’s account and to her mother’s account.  The defendant’s mother also once told the defendant that Maurice Ng was using her account for his business. 

80.  Whilst one might expect to know if money was regularly being transferred by one’s mother, I find inherently improbable that if the mother was dealing in the proceeds of crime she would transfer the monies from her own account to her daughter’s account.  Equally I find inherently improbable that if the defendant believed the monies were the proceeds of crime she would knowingly involve her mother.  

81.  Further in respect of the sum of $55,150 transferred from the mother’s account on 16 October 2012, the sum of $55,098.76 was transferred to Chen Jinbao seven minutes later[58]. This transfer is also more consistent with money exchange than money laundering and again lends some support to the defendant’s evidence she allowed Maurice Ng to use the account for his business.   

82.  On 12 September 2012 the sum of $100.00 was transferred from the mother’s account and twenty three minutes later transferred to the account of Chen Jinbao.  Although not the subject of a charge the transfer of $100.00 between the two accounts can hardly be said to be consistent with money laundering.    

83.  Having carefully considered all the evidence I find the defendant’s evidence that she allowed Maurice Ng to use her account for his business may be true. 

Reasonable grounds to believe

84.  Lending a bank account to your employer for the purpose of his business may well strike others as excessively naïve or gullible or foolish.  Many may well think this is suspicious leading them to believe that the property was tainted.  However the relationship between the defendant and Maurice Ng was not simply that of employer and employee. 

85.  The defendant had known Maurice Ng since 1994 and from 2006 he had cohabited with the defendant’s mother.  While working with Maurice Ng the defendant lived together with her mother and Maurice Ng.  In these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising the defendant trusted Maurice Ng and did not ask him any questions about the use of the account and the source of the monies she withdrew for him.

Charges 37 & 38 – Lymington Hardy Consultants.

86.  The explanation the defendant lent her account to a customer who she trusted because he was a businessman, a businessman who said he did not have a bank account, can on the one hand be said to be far-fetched and bizarre.  On the other hand the defendant could quite easily have given the same explanation as charge 37, that she withdrew the money on the instructions of Maurice Ng. 

87.  Quite why she did not give the same explanation for the two withdrawals of monies transferred from the account of Lymington Hardy Consultants is difficult to understand, unless of course the explanation is true.  On this basis, bizarre as the explanation maybe, I find I cannot reject that this explanation may be true and that the defendant naïve, gullible and foolish as she was, trusted George. 

88.    For these reasons I find the prosecution have failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant dealt with the monies passing through her account having reasonable grounds to believe that the monies were the proceeds of an indictable offence.  The defendant is given the benefit of the doubt and acquitted of all charges.