HKSAR v. CHAN HO YIN AND ANOTHER

DCCC1279/2023 & 8/2025

(Consolidated)

[2025] HKDC 1900

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1279 OF 2023 and 8 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.  The defendants have entered pleas to this indictment as follows:  The 1^st defendant has pleaded guilty to the 1^st charge and the 2^nd defendant has pleaded guilty to the 2^nd, 3^rd and 4^th charges.  All the charges alleged dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1)  and (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.  These offences can colloquially be described as money laundering offences. 

2.  The facts presented before me and agreed by the defendants show in respect of the 1^st charge of the 1^st defendant that on 8 December 2022, the 1^st  defendant opened a personal saving accounts at the Hang Seng Bank.  He was the sole account holder and signatory of that account between 9 December 2022 and 14 December 2022.  During that period, a total of HK$6,550,170 was deposited into the account and $6,650,167 were withdrawn from the account by way of 94 withdrawals, the opening balance of that account being zero dollars and the closing balance being $3.  The facts also show that the 1^st prosecution witness was deceived into depositing $400,000 into this account.

3.  The 2^nd defendant pleaded guilty to three charges of money laundering.  The facts agreed show the 2^nd defendant is the sole account holder of three accounts.  In respect of the 2^nd charge, a personal saving account with the Bank of China, known as Account 2; in charge 3, a personal account with HSBC, known as Account 3; in respect of charge 4, a personal account with Standard Chartered Bank Incorporation, known as Account 4.

4.  On 28 June 2011, the 2^nd defendant opened Account 2.  Between 19 November 2022 and 20 December 2022, there were a total of 87 deposits of $5,286,889 and a total of 127 withdrawals of $5,286,992.31.  The 2^nd defendant confirmed in a video-recorded interview that he sold this account to a person call “Ah Ho” in late 2022 and received $70,000 in remuneration and also passed over the ATM card online banking password and ATM password for this account.

5.  In respect of charge 3, which is Account 3, the 2^nd defendant had opened that account on 14 July 2021.  The account was active between 12 November 2022 and 6 December 2022, a total of 52 deposits of $5,736,520, 113 withdrawals of $5,735,475.  The 2^nd defendant admitted surrendering his personal particulars and bank credentials of both this account and the Account 4 to a person call “Ar Ho” and giving the bank accounts cards to a person “Ar Lung”.  He had also stayed in a hotel at Ar Lung’s suggestion and been given $70,000 in cash.

6.  Charge 4 relates to Account 4.  On 31 October 2022, the 2^nd defendant opened this account in his sole name.  The account was active between 31 October 2022 and 30 November 2022, a total of 75 deposits of $3,356,399.17 and 74 withdrawals of $3,356,286.  The 2^nd defendant had claimed for this account, as for Account 3, to have been sold to Ar Ho and Ar Lung had asked him to stay in the hotel and paid him $70,000.

7.  The facts also show that PWs 2 to 19 made deposits into accounts 2, 3 and 4.  They are detailed in the facts and PWs 1 to 19 were the victims of online romance scams and investments fraud offences.  The total figures in respect of the charges, on the 1^st defendant in respect of the sole charge he faces it is $6,550,170 and the 2^nd defendant, totally $14,379,808.

8.  As far as the defendants’ backgrounds are concerned, the 1^st defendant is aged 28.  He is currently in custody as a result of the conviction of an offence on 18 October 2025 for trafficking in a dangerous drug and is serving a sentence of 6 years’ and 4 months’ imprisonment.

9.  As far as the 1^st defendant’s mitigation is concerned, he admits the offence, admits giving the account to another person.  He says he was not involved in any of the deposits and withdrawals from the account.  At the time, he was unaware of the source of the money or where the money went but he was turning a blind eye all along.  He said he was paid some $2,000 for this service.

10.  The 1^st defendant’s education is only up to Form 5 level.  At the time of his arrest he was married, lived with his father and mother.  He has three children, two of whom are living with his ex-wife.  He was contributing salary to his parents at the time of his arrest and detention.  The 1^st defendant has produced a number of documents in support of his mitigation including documents from the Christian Kun Sun Association.  He has support from his parents.  Although indicated the 1^st defendant has three previous convictions, the major conviction I am concerned with of course is his most recent one for which he is at present serving a lengthy term of imprisonment.

11.  As far as the 2^nd defendant is concerned, he is of clear record.  He is presently detained.  The 2^nd defendant is married with a 3 year old son, had worked as an electrical technician in the past.  He has been living with his parents in Hong Kong.  I am told that in around 2022 he met his present wife and they were intending to get married and it was around that time that he was offered the $70,000 to sell the bank accounts, the history of which he set out in the video-recorded interview.  He also maintains he was unaware of who the victims were and was not actually involved in the commission of the predicate offences.  This defendant also effectively says he was turning a blind eye.

12.  Now as far as the submissions put forward by the defendants are concerned, I see nothing in those submissions would in any way impugn upon their pleas of guilty to these charges.  I am aware of case CAAR 4/2024 [2025] HKCA 911.  I will simply say it seems to be confined to its own facts.

13.  Now as far as the approach to sentencing is concerned, it is the same for both defendants.   I note at this stage, of course, the prosecution has an application under Section 27 of OSCO for enhancement of sentence.  I will deal with that at a moment.

14.  As far as the principles of sentencing is concerned, they can be found in a number of cases in Hong Kong.  The case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545.  There is also the case of HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33.  Also when considering the case of Hsu Yu Yi, one should also consider the case of SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, which although not setting out guidelines sets out a suggested range of sentences in respect of various sums of money.

15.  The first point I would like to make in respect of sentencing is there is no guideline or tariff sentencing for these offences.  The major factors in terms of sentencing will of course always be the amount of money that is found to have been laundered by the defendant. 

16.  As far as the case of Boma is concerned, it sets out a number of factors that one should consider or the sentencing court should consider in determining the appropriate starting point for sentence.  One of course is the nature of the predicate offence; the knowledge or understanding of the predicate offence by the money launderer himself; whether any international element exists; the sophistication of the offence including the degree of planning; whether any criminal syndicate is involved; the numbers of transactions and the length of time; whether the defendant acquired any subsequent knowledge of the predicate offence and continued in his activity after querying that knowledge; the role and acts of the money launderer in this case.

17.  Both defendants, although their cases are different, they say the same thing about their involvement.  They were what is described as “stooges”, that is someone who lends or sells their account to another criminal without further involvement on their part for which they received a reward.

18.  Now I take into account all the factors that have been put forward in mitigation.  I note that the form of deception involved here was largely romance scams and telephone deceptions.  There is no concrete evidence of the participation in that fraud by the 1^st or 2^nd defendant.  There is no international element present.  They were dealing with a commonplace way of committing the offences which is a sale of the account, turning a blind eye to these activities.  The accounts themselves show clear and obvious signs of money laundering.  There is a large number of transactions in all the accounts but they are over a short period and I accept that both the 1^st and 2^nd defendants’ mitigation put forward that they are stooge account holders in this case. 

19.  As I have noted earlier, the prosecution makes an application before me today under Section 27 of OSCO.  In respect of both defendants, the application is made under Section 27(2)  of Cap 455 and evidence is produced by Chief Inspector Li that show the prevalence of the use of stooge accounts in the commission of the specified offence which is dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence and the nature and extent of any harm, direct or indirect, caused to the community by the recent occurrence of this specified offence.  The statement is dated 20 October 2025 and provides detailed evidence and statistics relating to the commission of deception cases and money laundering cases up to September 2025. There is no full year obviously for 2025 because the year has not at this point ended. 

20.  I will note in passing that the commission of offences of money laundering of this kind do appear to have plateaued somewhat but the prosecution through this statement has clearly shown the prevalence of the stooge account for money laundering and how that interferes with the normal operation of the banking system in Hong Kong and shows the extent of harm caused to the community by these offences.  I do find that stooge accounts are prevalent still and the prosecution have established the basis for enhancement of the sentence for both the 1^st and 2^nd  defendants.

21.  Now I deal with the starting points for sentence.  The way in which the calculation of sentence is made in these cases is to establish firstly a starting point for sentence then grant, if appropriate, a deduction for the defendants’ pleas of guilty.  There is no dispute in this case that the full one-third deduction will be appropriate for both defendants.  It would appear after making that calculation that the enhancement of sentence is based on the figure achieved at that point and then a figure calculated on whatever percentage is considered to be the appropriate enhancement.  To give a final sentence, that is the procedure adopted uniquely in respect of these kind of cases. 

22.  I observe by way of passing, the normal approach would be to calculate a starting point for sentencing based on any aggravating factors that exist, which in this case would be the enhancements of sentence and then deduct any discount for the plea of guilty from that figure but that has not been historically the approach adopted by the courts.

23.  I shall adopt the normal procedure in this case.  As a preface to that, I have indicated that this is a case appropriate for enhancement in respect of all charges faced by these defendants.  I will limit that enhancement to a figure of 20 per cent to reflect the conclusions that could be drawn from the statistics that have been put before me today.

24.  As far as the 1^st defendant is concerned, I am dealing with a total of some $6.5 million but I consider that in his case I will adopt the starting point of 45 months’ imprisonment on charge 1.  The defendant is entitled to one-third deduction which reduces that figure to 30 months’ imprisonment.  There is then a 20 per cent enhancement which leads to a final figure of 36 months’ imprisonment.

25.  As I have noted earlier, the 1^st defendant is serving a lengthy sentence of imprisonment.  I must consider the overall totality of sentence having regard to that sentence passed on 8 October 2025.  I should regard this as if both sentences were being imposed at the same time.  I also note that at the time the commission of this offence the defendant was of clear record.  I consider it would be inappropriate to order this sentence to be served exclusively consecutively and some part of it must be served concurrent to his existing sentence.  

26.  Having regard to the lengthy sentence that the defendant is already serving, I shall simply order that 18 months of this sentence to be served consecutively to his existing sentence, the balance concurrently.

27.  And I deal with the 2^nd defendant’s sentence.  In charge 2, I am dealing with a figure of $5.28 million, charge 3, $5.7 million and charge 4, $3.3 million.  Charges 2 and 3, I will take a starting point of 42 months’ imprisonment on each.  Charge 4, a starting of 36 months’ imprisonment.  In respect of charges 2 and 3, after a one-third deduction that would lead to a sentence of 28 months’ imprisonment.  There will be an enhancement in the region of 20 per cent which leads to a final sentence of 34 months’ imprisonment on both charges 2 and 3.

28.  On charge 4, as I have indicated, a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment which leads to a sentence of 24 months’ imprisonment, an enhancement of 5 months leading to a final sentence of 29 months’ imprisonment. 

29.  In respect of this defendant, I must also consider the overall totality of sentence to be achieved.  As I have indicated earlier, the overall money laundered by this defendant was in the region of over $14 million.  I consider a final total sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment will be appropriate.  I will achieve this as follows:  I will order charges 2 and 3 to be served concurrently one to another.  I shall order as far as charge 4 is concerned, that 14 months of that be served consecutively to charges 2 and 3 and the balance concurrently.