HKSAR v. SO KIM-YI AND OTHERS

HCCC 399/2018

[2019] HKCFI 1448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 399 OF 2018

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:

Background and Facts

The three defendants pleaded guilty to all their respective charges on 17 December 2018 in the Eastern Magistracy. These charges include cultivation of cannabis plants in four separate locations, trafficking in dangerous drugs seized and the 2nd defendant faced five charges of money laundering.

The first premises, the first village house was located in Loi Tung East Tsuen, Loi Tun, Sha Kok Mei, “LT”, and was raided by the police at about 11 am on 6 April 2017. This village house is about 400 square feet and has two floors.

The 2nd defendant was arrested inside and the police found 23,087 grammes of cannabis in the form of 272 live plants growing in pots on both floors. They found items used for indoor cannabis cultivation such as timers, carbon dioxide machines and other ventilation devices.

The 2nd defendant had installed other equipment such as lamps, reflective paper and air-conditioners to cultivate the cannabis plants. The police found a bag of cannabis in herbal form weighing 64.1 grammes in a refrigerator.

Under caution for trafficking in that cannabis, the 2nd defendant said this lot of cannabis buds is being planted, that lot is ready for sale. The police also found $32,506, renminbi 4,755, 3 mobile phones and 26 keys in his bag.

In his subsequent video-recorded interview, the 2nd defendant made a full admission. He said he cultivated cannabis at LT for profit and had rented the premises in his brother’s name, the 1st defendant, in September or October 2016. He learnt how to cultivated cannabis on the internet and purchased cannabis seeds in February or March 2016 from the internet. He began by growing them in pots in his own home but when they became too many, he rented LT for the sole purpose of cultivating the plants.

Once matured, they would be cut and dried before being sold. He sold 5 pounds of cannabis in February 2017 for $25,000 a pound.

The forensic scientist and agricultural officer of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, the AFC, calculated the annual yield from 272 cannabis plants being harvested three times a year. It was calculated that an annual yield of 69.3 kilogrammes of fresh cannabis leaves and or flowers could be achieved. Once dried, the average weight percentage of cannabis obtained from these plants is about 19 per cent. Therefore, in dry herbal form, the annual yield would be about 13.2 kilogrammes.

This had an estimated retail value of $3,220,800 in April 2017.

The 64.1 grammes of cannabis found in refrigerator had an estimated retail value of $15,640.

The second village house was located in Ping Che Road, Ta Kwu Ling, “PC”, and was raided by the police at about 12.45 pm that same day. The 1st defendant was arrested at those premises.

This village house was about 1,000 square feet over two floors. The police found 35,836 grammes of cannabis in the form of 369 live plants growing on both floors. They found items used for indoor cannabis cultivation such as timers, carbon dioxide machines and other ventilation devices.

The 1st defendant was arrested for cultivation of cannabis and under caution said that all the plants in the house were cultivated by him. He later admitted renting the premises a year earlier for the purposes of keeping dogs and parking his cars. He even employed a foreign domestic helper to live there to care for those animals. He rented the premises in November 2015 for three years.

The forensic scientist and the agricultural officer of the AFC calculated the annual yield from these 369 cannabis plants being harvested three times a year. It was calculated that an annual yield of 107.5 kilogrammes of fresh cannabis leaves and/or flowers could be achieved. Once dried, the average weight percentage of cannabis obtained from these plants is also about 19 per cent. Therefore, in dry herbal form, the annual yield would be about 20.4 kilogrammes.

This had an estimated retail value of $4,977,600 in April 2017.

The third village house was located in Ma Tseuk Leng, Sha Tau Kok, “MTL”. This was raided by the police at about 12.47 on the same day. The garden gate was unlocked and they found a village house measuring 2,100 square feet over three floors.

The 3rd defendant opened the door to the police and a search warrant. The police found 19,969.18 grammes of cannabis in the form of 605 cut plants and 913.84 grammes of cannabis in the form of 16 pot plants. They found items used for indoor cannabis cultivation such as timers, carbon dioxide machines, a carbon dioxide detector, a water pump and other ventilation devices. They also found a bag of cannabis in herbal form weighing 110 grammes.

The 3rd defendant was arrested for cultivation of cannabis plants and under caution said he helped someone cultivate cannabis in the house because he was in urgent need of money. Later, under caution, he made a full admission of cultivating cannabis in that house for a man called “Headmaster” who he met in a bar in December 2016. He agreed to cultivate cannabis for this man whose identity was later agreed to be the 1st defendant.

The 1st defendant would pay him or give him $40,000 each month to pay $17,000 for rent and the rest was to go towards the cultivation of cannabis plants. He bought all the equipment in December 2016 and installed it. They included solar lamps, carbon dioxide machines, fans and air conditioners. The plants had been growing since January 2017. A bag of 110 grammes of herbal cannabis was dried by himself and for his own consumption.

The forensic scientist and agricultural officer of the AFC calculated the annual yield from those 621 plants being harvested three times a year. It was calculated that an annual yield of 122.6 kilogrammes of fresh cannabis leaves and or flowers could be achieved. Once dried, the average weight percentage of cannabis obtained from these plants is about 10.6 per cent. Therefore, in dry herbal form, the annual yield would be about 13 kilogrammes.

This had an estimated retail value of $3,172,000 in April 2017.

The 110 grammes of dried herbal cannabis seized had an estimated retail value of $26,840.

The fourth village house was located in Ma On Kong Village, Pat Heung, “MOK”. This was raided by the police at about 6.45 pm on 7 April 2017. This premises measured about 150 square feet and comprised of three floors. The police broke into the house but found nobody inside. They did find 40,194.8 grammes of cannabis in the form of 342 live plants grown on two floors of the village house. They also found 171 grammes of herbal cannabis in two bags in the refrigerator. They also seized items used for indoor cultivation such as bags of soil, carbon dioxide machines and timers.

The following day on 8 April 2017, the 2nd defendant was taken to MOK and admitted to the police that he had rented that village house since 2013 for cultivating cannabis. He alone cultivated the plants there by using the same planting method he used at LT. He said the plants were for sale, for friends and self-consumption. He was the tenant of the premises from November 2012 and the lease had been extended once to November 2018.

The forensic scientist and agricultural officer of the AFC calculated the annual yield from 342 cannabis plants being harvested three times a year. It was calculated that an annual yield of 145.1 kilogrammes of fresh cannabis leaves and or flowers could be achieved. Once dried, the average weight percentage of cannabis obtained from these plants was about 17 per cent. Therefore, in dry herbal form, the annual yield would be about 24.7 kilogrammes.

This had an estimated retail value of $6,026,800 in April 2017.

The 171 grammes of herbal cannabis seized had an estimated retail value of $41,870.

There are many photographs taken of the four cultivation sites in the four village houses. They show a sophisticated operation with rooms equipped with light bulbs, ventilation pipes, timers for electricity supply, fans and air conditioners. The inner walls of the rooms were covered with light-reflecting material to increase the light intensity which was beneficial to the growth of these plants.

The police found fertilizer, soil and carbon dioxide generators which increased the carbon dioxide level inside the premises to again enhance plant growth. This speeds up the process of photosynthesis to increase plant yield.

The police also raided another separate premises where they found 59 bottles of fertilizer, two electronic scales and a bunch of resealable plastic bags. All paraphernalia commonly associated with packing and trafficking dangerous drugs. All three defendants had possession of keys which could access this fifth premises.

Charges 1 to 7

The 1st and 2nd defendant have pleaded guilty to Charge 1, cultivation of cannabis plants at LT.

The 2nd defendant has pleaded guilty to Charge 2, trafficking in the dangerous drugs seized from the refrigerator in LT, 64.1 grammes of herbal cannabis.

The 1st and 2nd defendant have pleaded guilty to Charge 3, cultivation of cannabis plants at PC.

The 1st and 3rd defendant have pleaded guilty to Charge 4, cultivation of cannabis plants at MTL.

The 3rd defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 5, trafficking in the dangerous drugs seized in MTL, 110 grammes of herbal cannabis.

The 2nd defendant has pleaded guilty to Charge 6, cultivation of cannabis plants at MOK. He has also pleaded guilty to Charge 7, trafficking in the dangerous drugs seized from the refrigerator in MOK, 171.6 grammes of herbal cannabis.

Charges 8 to 12

Charges 8 to 12 are money laundering charges. They relate to cash found on the 2nd defendant in his home, in MOK and money deposited into a bank account and an insurance company deposit.

Charge 8 involves $32,506 and 4,755 renminbi found in the 2nd defendant’s bag when he was arrested. He admitted that some of the cash came from the proceeds of trafficking in dangerous drugs that is selling the cannabis which he had cultivated. Some of it was income earned as a minibus driver and decoration worker. He was unable to quantify the amounts of legal income and proceeds of drug trafficking.

Charge 9 involves $400,570 found in a drawer of a cupboard in the 2nd defendant’s home. Under caution, he said that cash was his savings from working for 10 to 20 years. He now admits that was in whole or in part, directly or indirectly the proceeds of an indictable offence, namely trafficking in a dangerous drug.

Charge 10 involves cash found in MOK. The police found a paper bank containing $119,000 in a cupboard under a wash basin. They also found a metal container containing $150,900 in the kitchen. He now admits that the total amount of $269,900 was in whole or in part, directly or indirectly the proceeds of an indictable offence namely trafficking in a dangerous drug.

Charge 11 deals with a sum of $1,677,500 deposited into a Bank of China account number 012-872-1-118746-9 of which the 2nd defendant was a sole account holder and authorised signatory. Between 26 January 2016 and 1 April 2017, there were 31 cash deposits totalling that amount. The amount of those deposits range from $2,000 to a $100,000. The bulk was in deposits of 20,000 and 100,000. Out of these 31 cash deposits, 13 were a sum of $100,000 paid into the account between 22 February 2016 and 4 March 2016. 6 of those 31 cash deposits were in the sum of $20,000 made between 22 February 2016 and 15 March 2017.

Apart from those 31 cash deposits, there were other deposits made into that account by other means including transfers from the 2nd defendant’s other bank accounts during that period of time. In fact, the total amount of all the deposits made were $3,491,638.68. The amount of money in this charge from the 31 cash deposits amounted to 48.06 per cent of the total sum.

The 2nd defendant now admits that the sum of 1,677,500 was in whole or in part, directly or indirectly the proceeds of an indictable offence, namely trafficking in a dangerous drug.

Charge 12 deals with a sum of $1,630,000 deposited into a KGI account 1-23-0007664-4 of which the 2nd defendant was the sole account holder and authorised signatory.

Between 31 March 2012 and 30 April 2017, there were 21 cash deposits totalling that amount. The amount of the 21 cash deposits ranged from 30,000 to $200,000. Out of these deposits, 9 were in the sum of 100,000 and 10 were in the sum of 50,000. One was in the sum of 200,000 and was in the sum of 30,000.

Apart from these 21 cash deposits there were other deposits made into that account by other means. During the period of time, the amount of all the deposits made to that account totalled $2,188,244.48. The 21 cash deposits amount to 74.49 per cent of the total sum in that account.

The 2nd defendant now admits that the sum of $1,630,000 was in whole or in part, directly or indirectly the proceeds of an indictable offence, namely, trafficking in a dangerous drug.

According to the records of the Inland Revenue Department, the 2nd defendant has not filed any tax returns nor has he made any payment or entered into any correspondence with the department for the financial years 2010 to 11, to 2016 to 17. According to the account application forms, he claimed to be a driver by profession.

Mitigation, the 1st defendant

The 1st defendant is 44 years old, married and the younger brother of the 2nd defendant. They were both born in Hong Kong and the 1st defendant was educated up to Form 2 level. After leaving school, he worked as a renovation worker and in addition, from 2002 he and his wife set up a pet shop in Yuen Long.

The 1st defendant and his wife are pet lovers. They have adopted over the years many stray dogs and abandoned cats. Their shop was closed in August 2013. The 1st defendant also set up a trading company, trading in vehicle spare parts. His monthly income was about HK$50,000 a month. I have a letter from his wife supporting him, giving an insight into his character and asking for mercy.

The 1st defendant has one previous conviction in 2011. He was sentenced to an 18 month probation order for possession of dangerous drugs in the District Court. I note in that case he was charged with possession of 12 cannabis plant pots found in his vehicle. He was in fact jointly charged with another brother, not the 2nd defendant, who was charged with cultivation of cannabis plants and abstracting electricity. I have read the reasons for sentence in that case. A remote village house in Yuen Long was rented for the purposes of cultivating cannabis plants. It was a sophisticated and well-equipped operation. That other brother started growing cannabis to relieve pain from an injury but it became a commercial enterprise for profit.

The 1st defendant, according to his co-accused brother in that case, sublet the village house to him. The 1st defendant later found out his brother was cultivating cannabis and said he was taking the 12 pot plants of cannabis away in order to try some. There can be no denying that the 1st defendant must have been well aware how serious and illegal it is to cultivate cannabis plants. That brother was sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment after a guilty plea.

The 2nd defendant

The 2nd defendant is 53 years old and educated up to Form 5 level. He is once divorced with a daughter from his previous marriage. He remarried in 2008. He has several sources of income including driving all kinds of different vehicles, running a renovation business and a parallel goods business as well as driving a minibus part-time at the time of his arrest. His average monthly income was about HK$60,000 a month. He has a clear record.

He was introduced to cannabis by a friend to relieve pain and insomnia from a back injury due to an accident that happened whilst he was working as a renovation worker. He found cannabis helpful to relieve pain and combat insomnia. He learnt about cultivating cannabis for his own use on the internet.

At first, he cultivated cannabis for his own consumption at home. He says that he and the 1st defendant later bought seeds and equipment to grow cannabis at home in early 2016 but decided to expand the scale of production after successfully growing it at home. They started cultivating cannabis plants in different village houses in the New Territories.

I have mitigation letters from the 2nd defendant’s older brother and half-sister. Both described him as a filial son who nursed his terminally ill mother until she passed away. He is constantly supporting his daughter and is a valued member of the extended family. The letters ask for leniency and mercy for him to start afresh. I have read the contents of all the mitigation letters.

Defence counsel Mr Yu for the 1st and 2nd defendant has also exhibited the business registrations for the 1st defendant’s company as well as receipts from two charities. The 1st defendant donated regularly to the Po Leung Kuk and the 2nd defendant donated regularly to Médecins Sans Frontières. He submits that shows they are generous and kind natures. The 1st defendant has also signed an organ donor card in case of death.

It is submitted that the 1st and 2nd defendant are very unlikely to reoffend having been in remand for 2 years already. They have learnt a bitter lesson.

The 3rd defendant

The 3rd defendant is 24 years old, single, living with his family and was unemployed at the time of the offence. He was in need of money so he accepted the job offer from the 1st defendant to tend to and look after cannabis plants in a village house. He was given money to pay the rent for the premises and buy machinery, tool and provisions for the purposes of cultivating cannabis plants.

He had been helping for about 4 months before he was arrested. I have been told in mitigation that he financially supported his family because his parents had retired and he also had a younger brother who was still a student.

When he was offered the job and an opportunity to earn quick money, he committed these offences. He admits that the drugs of Charge 5, the 110 grammes of cannabis in herbal form were for sale.

The 3rd defendant has one of previous conviction. In 2012, he was sentenced to a training centre order for a robbery offence.

Counsel for the 3rd defendant, Ms Lam, has said all she can on his behalf and stressed that he was a gardener or helper and not the organizer or controller of the operation. Therefore, he played a lesser role in this operation.

Sentencing Considerations

As far as the money laundering charges are concerned, there is no tariff for this offence. In determining the appropriate sentence, I will have regard to the amount of money laundered as well as the factors relevant to sentencing as set out in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma, [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. What is relevant here is the nature and penalty of the predicate offence, trafficking in cannabis. What is also relevant to the 2nd defendant is his knowledge, the lack of any particular sophistication of the money laundering offences, the number of transactions and the length of time in the money laundering process as well as his role and reward. Here, he was the end-user and beneficiary.

In that first authority, that accused personally dealt with approximately $2.5 million and the appropriate starting point was held to be 3 years and 6 months. In that second authority, the accused dealt with about HK$10 million and the Court of Appeal was of the view that the notional starting point of 4 years' imprisonment was “plainly too low”.

There are no tariff guidelines for the offence of cultivating cannabis plants. This offence carries a maximum term of 15 years’ imprisonment and a $100,000 fine.

It is accepted that the appropriate approach to sentencing is to have regard to the opinion of an expert as to the estimated annual yield of herbal cannabis from the plants. It is not the weight of the plants at the time of the arrest that is considered relevant.

Defendants in this case do not challenge the expert’s opinion nor the estimated retail value of the cannabis.

The sentencing tariffs for trafficking in cannabis resin is relevant. After all, the defendants are cultivating cannabis plants for the purpose of supplying it to others for consumption, namely for the purposes of trafficking. I have been referred to the authority of HKSAR v Nguyen Thu Ha, CACC 335/2013.

Other relevant sentencing factors include how many cannabis plants were being cultivated, their maturity, the size and sex of the plants, the sophistication of the operation, whether it was an ongoing operation or a one-off and was it a commercial enterprise or operation. The role of the offender is also relevant. Whether the offender is a gardener or helper cultivating plants or a manager of the operation or the organizer and lastly whether he is the controller of the enterprise.

I have been referred to many authorities in helpful written submissions from defence counsel referring to the charge of cultivating cannabis plants, but all relate to District Court sentences. Starting points range from 18 months for 4.42 kilogrammes of estimated annual yield to 3 years and 6 months for a yield of 71.2 kilogrammes. In that last illustration, however, that defendant was classified as only a gardener and there was only one premise used to cultivate cannabis plants. In this case, there were four premises and one storage unit.

Clearly there is no tariff and sentences will depend on the individual facts and circumstances of each case. It will depend on the roles played by the defendants and the size and sophistication of the operation.

Here, as far as the 1st defendant is concerned, the annual yield for Charges 1, 3 and 5 add up to 46.6 kilogrammes worth an estimated $11,370,400.

For the 2nd defendant, the annual yield for Charges 1, 3 and 7 add up to 58.3 kilogrammes worth an estimated $14,225,200.

For the 3rd defendant, the annual yield for Charge 4 is 13 kilogrammes worth an estimated $3,172,000.

The estimated annual yield for all four premises is 71.3 kilogrammes worth an estimated $17,397,200. This was a large, sophisticated, well-organized and very profitable operation.

There is no mileage in the mitigation that the 2nd defendant first dabbled in growing cannabis for his own consumption, pain and insomnia. Even if that were true, it soon became a commercial operation.

The guidelines for trafficking in cannabis come from R v Tuen Shui Ming and another [1995] HKCA 36. There, the Court of Appeal suggested the following tariff for possession of cannabis resin for the purposes of unlawful trafficking. Where the amount is under 2,000 grammes, the starting point would be up to 16 months. Where the amount is over 2,000 grammes, starting point would be between 16 to 24 months. Where it is over 3,000 grammes, the starting point would be between 24 to 36 months. Where the amount is over 6,000 grammes, the starting point would be between 36 to 48 months. Where the amount is over 9,000 grammes, the starting point would be 4 years upwards.

There is no indication in the authority what tariff is appropriate for much larger quantities. As I have said here, the total estimated annual yield of all four premises is 71.3 kilogrammes. The Court of Appeal also indicated in that authority that as the concentration of cannabis resin is about 4 times stronger that cannabis in herbal form, then in cases of trafficking in cannabis in herbal form it would be appropriate to give a discount from the sentence of imprisonment that would have been imposed if it was cannabis resin. However, this is qualified by the Court of Appeal who held that although persons trafficking in herbal cannabis can properly be given a discount of up to a year from the sentence that would have been imposed had they had a similar amount of cannabis resin, if in cases where very large amount are involved then that discount will not apply.

Mr Yu has submitted that the 2nd defendant should be entitled to a discount for the two trafficking charges totalling 235.7 grammes given that that cannabis was in herbal form. On the other hand, he does not deny there are all very large amounts of herbal cannabis in this case from an overall annual yield perspective.

Having considered the facts of this case, I do classify the 1st and 2nd defendants as controllers of, between them, for premises and the storeroom. There is no denying that the 1st defendant recruited the 3rd defendant and set him up to look after one of the operations.

The amount of money involved in the four money laundering charges dealt with in a fairly short period of time show how lucrative cultivating cannabis plants can prove to be. The 1st and 2nd defendant are top of the chain, the masterminds but I accept the 3rd defendant is a gardener or helper.

There is no challenge to the expert’s opinion on the estimated annual yield of the cannabis plants in the village houses. It is not an exact science or calculation since the plants are indeed living organism and alive, so therefore will not produce uniform amounts of cannabis leaves and or flowers per plant. Even the expert qualifies his calculation by using the words “about” and “estimated”. However, without an expert’s opinion on the possible likely wastage, I accept the expert’s estimated annual yield of dried cannabis in herbal form for the purposes of sentencing.

Sentence for 1st and 2nd defendant

The best mitigation for all the defendants is guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity. I take into account there was full co-operation with the police and frank admissions upon arrest.

The 1st defendant is not a man with a clear record and that conviction 8 years ago is related to similar facts of this case, possession of the same type of drug. Mr Yu has also said all he can say on behalf of the 1st and 2nd defendant’s in mitigation. I have considered all submissions and letters put forward to give a full background for the purposes of sentencing.

What is also relevant is the scale of the operation as well as the estimated annual yield in quantity and in value. The amount is so high that no discount is appropriate for any of the charges just because the cannabis is in herbal form as oppose to cannabis resin.

The defendants had access to approximately 70 kilogrammes per year by cultivating cannabis plants for the purposes of supplying it to others, for trafficking it. As I have said, the 1st and 2nd defendant controlled the operation.

Here for the 1st defendant, as the total amount of estimated yield of herbal cannabis in Charges 1, 3 and 4 is 46.6 kilogrammes. In my opinion, having considered all the relevant facts and mitigation, the starting point should be 8 years for cultivating cannabis plants.

For the 2nd defendant, the total amount of estimated yield of herbal cannabis in Charges 1, 3 and 6 is 58.3 kilogrammes. In my opinion, having considered all the relevant facts and mitigation, the starting point for cultivating cannabis plants for the 2nd defendant should also be 8 years.

The estimated quantity may be higher than the amount for the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant had a clear record. Realistically, it would appear from the facts that they are both controllers of the whole operation and equally culpable.

The 2nd defendant faces two trafficking charges, herbal cannabis found in bags in the refrigerator at two of the premises. The total amount is 235.7 grammes. According to the tariff guidelines, if under 2,000 grammes is trafficked, the starting point will be up to 16 months. Here I find a starting point of 12 months appropriate for the total quantity.

The 2nd defendant also faces five money laundering charges that total $4,010,476 and RMB4,755. Having considered the relevant sentencing factors applicable to these facts as well as this amount, I find a starting point of 4 years for these facts and that amount appropriate.

3rd defendant

I accept that the 3rd defendant was recruited as a gardener and helper for one of the premises therefore his role is less serious. He is not a young man with a clear record but his one previous conviction is not similar. I have taken into account his plea, everything said on his behalf in mitigation as well as the estimated 13 kilogrammes as the annual yield of MOK. There is also the 110 grammes of herbal cannabis he admits to trafficking in Charge 5. I find a starting point of 5 years appropriate for cultivating cannabis plants and a starting point of 9 months appropriate for the trafficking charge.

All defendants are entitled to a discount of one-third for their pleas from those starting points. After that discount is applied, defendants are sentenced as follows:

For the 1st defendant, for Charge 1, 3 and 4, the 1st defendant is sentenced to 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

For the 2nd defendant, for Charge 1 he is sentenced to 5 years and 4 months, Charge 2, 8 months, Charge 3, 5 years and 4 months, Charge 6, 5 years and 4 months, Charge 7, 8 months, for Charge 8 to 12, 2 years and 8 months for each charge.

For the 3rd defendant, he is sentenced to, for Charge 4, 3 years and 4 months, Charge 5, 6 months.

I must take into account the totality principle and ensure that the total sentence in all the circumstances is not manifestly excessive. The facts make it possible for the sentences for cultivating cannabis plants and trafficking in herbal cannabis to be served concurrently. I will make all the sentences for cultivating cannabis plants concurrent.

I will make a major part of the sentences for money laundering concurrent sentences to those for cultivating cannabis plants and drug trafficking. I have considered HKSAR v Lam Chi Wa, CACC 94/2008 which considers a scenario where the drug trafficker is also charged with the offence of dealing in or with the proceeds of his own crime. Essentially, the trafficker is also the money launderer. The Court of Appeal held if the trafficking and money laundering charges are not separate and the proceeds can be linked to the drug trafficker trafficking those drugs then in such a situation allowance can be made for this by making the whole or a substantial part of the sentences concurrent.

Therefore, for the 1st defendant, the sentences of Charge 1, 3 and 4 will be served concurrently. You will serve a total of 5 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.

For the 2nd defendant, the sentences for Charge 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 and 9 to 12 will be served concurrently. But 6 months of Charge 8 will be served consecutively to Charge 1 and the balance concurrently. You will serve a total of 5 years and 10 months’ imprisonment.

For the 3rd defendant, the sentences of Charges 4 and 5 will be served concurrently. You will serve a total of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.