HKSAR v. YEUNG KI YUK (also known as YEUNG SHEUNG FUNG)

DCCC 1402/2024

[2026] HKDC 540

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1402 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering and was convicted accordingly. The Prosecution prepared a chronology of events in response to the defence’s allegation of delay. Defence counsel confirmed that there is no allegation of inordinate or malicious delay on the part of the Prosecution.

Brief Facts

2.   At the material time, the Defendant was the sole director and founding member of Sheung Fung Construction Limited (Sheung Fung), which was incorporated on 20 May 2016. The Defendant went to a branch of the Bank of China in Hung Hom on 2 June 2016 to open a Hong Kong dollar integrated account in the name of Sheung Fung with the account number 012-791-1-024251-2. The Defendant was the sole signatory of the said account. The account was closed on 1 September 2016 (the remaining balance of $65-odd was withdrawn on 1 September 2016). 

3.  Between 2 June 2016 and 1 September 2016, a total of HK$3,854,759.05 was deposited into the said account via 6 transfers, ranging from HK$422,765.13 to HK$990,272.75. On the other hand, 14 transfers totalling HK$3,854,790 were withdrawn from the account. The aforesaid 6 deposits were made via remittance. 

4.  The bank records of the said account revealed certain patterns of money laundering transactions: -

(1)  There was a strong mirroring pattern with all deposits were almost entirely withdrawn within 2 days of receipt. The overnight balance was insignificant compared to the total amount passing through the account.

(2)  The transaction patterns indicated that the account was not used for Sheung Fung’s general business purposes but rather for temporary funds depository.

(3)  Apart from the abovesaid 6 deposits and 14 withdrawals, the account only had 2 other deposits totalling $100.54 and one withdrawal of $69.59.

5.  The Defendant was arrested on 24 November 2016. In the video-recorded interview on 20 August 2017, the Defendant made, inter alia, certain admissions:- 

(1)  The Defendant helped NaNa make 14 withdrawals and gave the money to him. The Defendant said every time NaNa borrowed his account, he was instructed by NaNa to convert the sums deposited into Hong Kong dollars. NaNa would meet the Defendant at a branch of BOC, and the Defendant went into the bank and withdrew cash and gave the money to NaNa. They went to different branches of BOC on different occasions.

(2)  NaNa made 6 deposits into the account. NaNa would ask the Defendant to withdraw a large sum of money in cash and then to withdraw a smaller sum in about a few thousand dollars. There were 14 occasions. The Defendant never used the account and he made the 14 withdrawals under NaNa’s instructions.

(3)  On 9 August 2016, the Defendant went to a branch of BOC in Shatin to withdraw $500,000. As the branch did not have adequate cash, the Defendant went to another branch in Tsuen Wan to withdraw $295,000.

(4)  On 16 August 2016, the Defendant went to the branch in Tsuen Wan to withdraw cash. He got $600,000 only and, in the end, the Defendant went to another branch to withdraw $385,000.

6.  Sheung Fung did not file any tax return. The Defendant reported his personal income of $162,000 and $54,000 in 2016/17 and 2017/18 respectively. 

7.  The Defendant was in Hong Kong at the time when the bank account was opened and during the operation of the account.  

Mitigation

8.  The Defendant is 32 years old and is a Hong Kong resident. His education level is up to Secondary school level. The Defendant is married and has a son. The Defendant worked as a kitchen refrigerator technician. The Defendant continued to improve his working skill as an electrical worker since June 2024. He is remorseful and the Defence tendered the Defendant’s mitigation letter, in addition to those letters from the Defendant’s wife and parents, etc.  

9.  The Defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. Defence counsel identified certain features in this case to show the role played by the Defendant (paragraph 6 of the mitigation). The amount of money involved was not significant.  There is no evidence to show that the Defendant had any knowledge of the predicate offences. The span of the criminal activity was only about 3 months. The commission of the offence is relatively unsophisticated and the Defendant did not receive any financial gains. There was no evidence to show the existence of an international element. Defence counsel submitted that “the Defendant was never offered or given any benefit or reward for his participation.” (paragraph 5 of the mitigation). In addition, the Defence said there was a delay of some 8 years from the time the offence was committed.  

Sentence

10.  There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of money laundering. That said, the Court of Appeal has indicated a number of factors for sentencing considerations and the appropriate range of sentences in various sentencing authorities: HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi and HKSAR v Boma. 

11.  In the present case, the span of time in committing the offence is about 3 months. There is no evidence to suggest that the Defendant knew or was involved in the predicate offence. The amount involved is about HK$3.8 million. There was no sophisticated plan. There were 14 withdrawals with 6 deposits. The 6 deposits were made via remittance. That means these deposits were not effected locally. The Defence claimed that the Defendant did not make any gain or had no reward. 

12.  In his mitigation letter, the Defendant explained that he met a man called NaNa in June 2016. NaNa claimed that he worked in construction industry. He asked the Defendant to lend him the bank account so that he could pay salary to his staff and buy construction material. It is worth to note that the Defendant set up Sheung Fun on 20 May 2016 and the present offence was committed from 2 June 2016. 

13.  The Defendant now felt ashamed and promised not to re-offend.  He said he would be a law-abiding person and turn a new leaf. The Defendant’s wife in her letter said that the Defendant was keen to help people but was exploited by others. He is an important pillar of the family and would not commit the same mistake again. The Defendant’s parents pleaded leniency for their son as the Defendant is remorseful.  

14.  The Defendant was born in Hong Kong and is aged 32 now.  In October 2017, he was convicted of one count of fraud and was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. I was told that the subsequent fraud offence was committed in October 2016. As such, the Defendant had a clear record when he committed the present offence. 

15.  I am convinced that with his strong family support and his promise to be a law-abiding citizen upon discharge, the Defendant has learnt a bitter lesson, though this is his second time.  I will adopt a starting point of 3 years. With his plea, the sentence is reduced by one-third to 2 years. 

16.  Defence counsel also mentioned about undue delay as the time of the offence occurred from mid-2016 and the case was brought before the District Court in November 2024. That is a delay of some 8 years. From the chronology of events with the investigation of the case commenced in August 2016 up to the conclusion of the proceedings with the Defendant’s plea today (6 March 2026), it is obvious that the Prosecution did not mention the political unrest in 2019 and the COVID pandemic in 2020. In any event, I am prepared to take a lenient stance and reduce the sentence by 3 months relating to the issue of delay. Accordingly, I sentence the Defendant to 21 months’ imprisonment.