HKSAR v. TANG SIU HONG

DCCC103 & 339/2011
(CONS)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 103 & 339 OF 2011 (CONS)

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant enters a plea of guilty to four charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence, preferred against him under section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455. The facts to which he agrees are as follows.

2.  On 4 January 2010, the defendant opened an account in his name at three different financial institutions in Hong Kong.

3.  In March and April 2010, four persons, all born on the mainland but living at the time in Canada, Italy, Australia and New Zealand, came into contact on the Internet with persons unknown to them and were persuaded to make investments in schemes that were ultimately found to be fictitious.  Police investigation showed that between 25 January and 29 May 2010, the four victims and others made payments by way of remittance into the defendant’s three accounts totalling $504,236.49 (Charge 1), $471,084.66 (Charge 2), and $210,738.78 (Charge 3).  The defendant withdrew the monies shortly after they were received in the accounts.

4.  Between 19 February and 29 May 2010, the defendant had collected at the outlets of another financial institution 39 remittances totalling $1,139,088.37.  These remittances, ranging between $7,720 and $100,100, came from 25 persons in Guam, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and Hungary. 

5.  By his pleas of guilty to the charges, the defendant admits dealing with the monies with reasonable grounds to believe that they represented proceeds of indictable offence. 

6.  The court finds the defendant guilty as charged.

7.  In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following matters for the court’s consideration.  The defendant is now 27 years old and is married. His wife lives on the mainland.  He has had a minor record and has chosen to enter a plea of guilty at an early opportunity.  Having been unemployed for some time, he committed the offences because of financial hardship.  He earned $200 for each of the transactions of monies he helped to launder.  The reward he received totalled a mere $10,400.  The defendant is in control of little realisable assets to satisfy any confiscation orders.

Discussion

8.  Money laundering is a serious offence.  The reason is clear and simple.  Many serious crimes would not have been committed but for their potential of financial gains to the offenders.  Crimes know no borders nor does the movement of proceeds of crime.  The international community, of which Hong Kong is an active member, has awakened to this phenomenon and has called for a joint effort to tackle money laundering. 

9.  There is no sentencing guideline in offences of money laundering, so each case depends on its own facts.  The prosecution refer the court to the case of HKSAR v Javid Kamran CACC400/2004, and in particular, to paragraphs 34 to 36, while the defence relies on the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536.  In terms of factors to be taken into account in sentencing, the two cases are very much in line with each other.  

10.  In the instant case, the court notes the minor role of the defendant in the criminal operation, and the relatively small amount of his benefits.  However, the total amount laundered was in the order of $2.3 million, and the offences took place in the course of several months.  The victims, and there were over 30 of them, were all residents outside Hong Kong; they were unlikely to recover their loss. The defendant’s conduct has tarnished the good reputation of Hong Kong as a world financial centre.

11.  In all the circumstances, the court would adopt a starting point of 3 and a half years’ imprisonment to reflect the overall criminality of the offences. 

12.  Financial hardship is never a strong mitigation. Apart from the defendant’s guilty pleas, none of his personal and family circumstances would warrant any additional discount. 

Conclusion

13.  In the result, a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment will be adopted for Charges 1, 2 and 3, to be reduced by one-third, to one of 16 months each, to be served concurrently.  A starting point of 30 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate for Charge 4, which is likewise reduced by one-third to one of 20 months.  

14.  Having considered the principle of totality, the court orders that 8 months of the sentence for Charges 1, 2 and 3 should be served consecutively to the 20 months’ imprisonment for Charge 4, making a total sentence of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.