CRIMINAL CASE NO. 24 AND 105 OF 2010
COURT: The defendant, aged 60, a man of clear record, is convicted after trial of seven counts of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.
The prosecution was unable to establish the nature of the underlying offence from which the money emanated.
The 1st and 2nd charges concern a three-month period involving $406.5 million deposits and $406.7 million withdrawals, with a total of 930 transactions.
The 3rd and the 4th charges concern another three‑month period involving 1,860 transactions, $423 million deposits, $421 million withdrawals.
The 5th and 6th charges concern another three-month period, 2,798 transactions. Those charges involve $581.3 million deposits and $595.2 million withdrawals.
Each of those paired offences occurred over a three-month period, whilst the 7th charge concerned withdrawals made on the day of the defendant’s arrest, involving HK$50 million. The aggregate in respect of all seven charges are deposits of HK$1.41 billion, with HK$1.42 billion withdrawals.
Three bank accounts were involved, and basically, the modus operandi was that moneys would be injected into those accounts and the defendant would transfer money in and out of the accounts in accordance with instructions.
Money laundering is a very serious offence and attracts a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment and a fine of HK$5 million, and time and again the courts have remarked that the gravamen of money laundering offence is the amount of money handled, and this is one of the most important factors when it comes to sentencing.
In this case, the scheme of money laundering is a well‑planned and structured one, and no doubt a number of individuals were involved. Although there is no evidence of any international element, some transactions involve an across the border element.
The evidence revealed that apart from the three accounts that we are concerned about, there were other various bank accounts opened in the defendant’s own name to facilitate the channelling of funds, so it could be seen that the defendant played a pivotal role in the scheme to launder black money.
I have heard his background during the course of evidence. I have also read letters in mitigation written by the defendant’s ex-employer and his four children.
Given the seriousness of the offences, those backgrounds, whilst attracting sympathy, do very little in constituting humanitarian considerations or discounts to be given.
With the size and volume of the transfers and those features that I have referred to, I adopt a starting point of 4½ years’ imprisonment in respect of each of the charges. Considering the overall criminality, it warrants 7½ years’ imprisonment.
I order 6 months in each of Charges 2 to 7 to run consecutively to the sentence in respect of Charge 1, a total of 7½ years.