HKSAR v. LUI YUK YEE

DCCC 103/2025

[2026] HKDC 324

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 103 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  The defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to two charges of Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (commonly known as “Money Laundering”), contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.

2.  The particulars of the two charges were:

Charge 1

D, between 16 March 2021 and 27 September 2021, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with a person known as “Ah Ming”, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely a total sum of $2,424,745 Hong Kong currency in the bank account with Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited, account number 01268020066180, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

Charge 2

D, between 9 March 2021 and 19 January 2023, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with a person known as “Ah Ming”, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely a total sum of $1,189,881.09 Hong Kong currency, $195,381.13 United States currency, £3,604 Pound Sterling, $3,940 Australian currency, €6,205 Euro currency in the bank account with The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited, account number 656365087833, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The predicate offences

3.  Ms Tsui Hung Lucy (“PW1”) aged 61, was a self-employed broker.  She received a phone call on her mobile phone on 22 March 2021 from someone who claimed that her parcel send via SF express was intercepted; the call was continued by someone who claimed to be representing the Shanghai Ministry of Public security who told PW1 she was being investigated for money laundering.  Believing she was cooperating with genuine police investigation, PW1 supplied her bank account numbers and internet banking passwords to the culprits.  PW1 later discovered that a total of HKD6,475,220 was withdrawn from PW1’s bank accounts.  Two of these withdrawal in the total amount of HKD580,000 were deposited into D’s Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited (“BoC”) account no 01268020066180 (“A/C1”).  PW1 later realized she was scammed and reported the incident.

4.  Ms He Jufen (“PW2”) aged 58, was a waiter.  On 24 March 2021, PW2 received a phone call from a person who claimed to be a staff of PCCW and accused PW2 of committing an offence in the Mainland.  Believing she was cooperating with genuine investigation, PW2 supplied her bank account and internet banking passwords to the culprits.  PW2 later discovered that a total of HKD115,000 was withdrawn from PW2’s bank account and deposited into D’s HSBC account no 656365087833 (“A/C2”). PW2 later realized she was scammed and reported the incident.

Bank records

5.  Opening mandate shows that A/C1 was opened by D on 29 April 2020 and closed on 27 September 2021.  D was the sole account holder and signatory.  D reported to be a housewife at the account opening.  There was no transaction in A/C1 prior to 16 March 2021.

6.  Between 16 March 2021 and 27 September 2021:-

(a) There were no transactions in the account before 16 March 2021;

(b) A/C received 51 deposits in a total amount of HKD3,250,934, out of which a total of HKD580,000 (17.84% of the total deposits) was deposited from PW1, and HKD826,189 was from A/C2 ie HKD2,424,745 was from accounts other than another bank account owned by D;

(c) There was a clear mirror pattern in the transaction record of A/C1; all of the deposits were transferred out to counterparties within minutes;

(d) Transaction frequency was high and in significant amounts;

(e) There was no further transaction in A/C1 after 24 March 2021 with HKD5.56 left. The balance was withdrawn upon account close.

7.  Opening mandate shows that A/C2 was opened by D on 9 March 2021 by mobile app and closed on 19 January 2023.  D was the sole account holder.  D reported to be a housemaker at the account opening.

8.  Between 9 March 2021 and 19 January 2023:-

(a) A/C2 received 40 deposits in a total amount of HKD1,189,881.09, USD195,381.13, GBP3,604, AUD3,940 and EUR6,205 (total amount of deposits around HKD2,813,004.64^[1]), out of which HKD115,000 was deposited on 25 March 2021 from PW2’s account;

(b) There was a clear mirror pattern in the transaction records of A/C2; all of the deposits were withdrawn on the day of any deposit, including a total of HKD3,000 transferred to A/C1; the total amount of withdrawals was almost the same as the amount of deposits;

(c) Transaction frequency was high and in significant amounts;

(d) There were no further transactions in the A/C2 after 7 April 2022 with HKD48.54 and USD0.13 left in A/C2. The balance was withdrawn upon account close.

Other investigation

9.  Traffic Index Check of the Immigration Department record showed that D was in Hong Kong at the time of account openings of both accounts.

10.  Inland Revenue Department records show that D did not have any reported income in the years of assessment from 2019/20 to 2021/22.

11.  D did not possess any real estate, vehicle or vessel.

Arrest and cautioned statements

12.  D was arrested and cautioned on 14 September 2022 as a result of a house raid at the address stated on the opening mandates of A/C1 and A/C2.  Under immediate caution, D said she understood.

13.  House search was conducted and a bank card of A/C1 was seized from the closet of D’s residence.

14.  In subsequent cautioned video record of interview, D confessed that:-

(a) She was a housewife;

(b) She does not have any income and depends on $2,000-$3,000 which her son gave her monthly for daily expenditures;

(c) In around 2020, a person known as “Ah Ming” asked her to open A/C1 and A/C2 for him to use for 7-10 days for a reward of $40,000 to $50,000; she never received the reward;

(d) She met Ah Ming in Mah-jong games;

(e) She opened A/C1 and A/C2, and gave the bank card, e-banking password, and internet token of A/C1 and A/C2 to Ah Ming;

(f) Ah Ming returned the bank cards to her about 12 days later but Ah Ming did not return the e-banking passwords and internet token;

(g) She placed the bank card of A/C1 in her closet, which was seized by the police in the house search;

(h) She lost the bank card of A/C2; she reported the loss of the bank card with HSBC, but did not collect the replacement card and she did not use A/C2;

(i) She did not ask Ah Ming why he used her bank accounts as she believed in her friend; and

(j) She did not know anything about the transactions in A/C1 and A/C2.

PROSECUTION’S APPLICATION

15.  The Prosecution applied for an enhancement of sentence pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance Cap 455 by furnishing with the court a witness statement of Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment of the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, Hong Kong Police Force dated 12 February 2026.  The information provided by Chief Inspector Li showed the prevalence of the use of stooge account in the commission of money laundering offence in Hong Kong and the extent of harm caused directly or indirectly to the community.

CRIMINAL RECORD AND BACKGROUND OF THE DEFENDANT

16.  D has 1 previous criminal conviction record of gambling in a gambling establishment.

MITIGATION

17.  D is now aged 55.  She has been educated up to primary school.  Her husband committed suicide in 2007.  At the time of her arrest for the present offence, she lived with her son aged 25, and she was employed as a cleaner.

18.  In mitigation, it was submitted that there are no set guidelines for money laundering but the following cases served as a useful reference, they were HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, HKSAR v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. 

19.  Mr Chan, representing D, submitted that in the present case:-

(1) Regarding the nature of the predicate offences, they have been described in the facts as a scam on PW1 and PW2; in other words, fraud. Like money laundering, fraud is a serious offence, carrying a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. There is no tariff, and all depends on the facts of the case.

(2) There is no evidence that D knew about the predicate offences/scams (including who the actual scammer(s) were). She has not been charged with fraud.

(3) There is no evidence of any international dimension to the money laundering in the present case.

(4) The offences in the present case did not involve elaborate steps, schemes or fraudulent means.

(5) There is no evidence of the involvement of any organized crime syndicate.

(6) Regarding the number of transactions and the length of time over which the offences occurred, for Charge 1, there were 51 deposits made over the course of 9 days in March 2021 (a relatively short period of time), and for Charge 2, it covers a period of around 13 months (9 March 2021 to 7 April 2022) when 40 deposits were made.

(7) The factor of whether the defendant continued to launder money after knowing the nature of the predicate offence is not applicable in the present case. As said, she did not know the nature of the predicate offence. She turned a blind eye to A/C1 and A/C2 after she had opened each account. As she had said in her cautioned interview, she did not know about any of the transactions in A/C1 and A/C2. She admits to the money laundering charges herein on the “reasonable grounds to believe” limb.

(8) D’s role was limited to opening two bank accounts and lending them to Ah Ming for him to use. Ah Ming did not pay D any of the promised reward, or any remuneration at all.

20.  The global sum is HKD5,237,749.64[2]. Mr Chan submitted that if the court considered taking a global approach, an initial starting point of 48 months’ imprisonment was deemed to be appropriate.  If taking the charges separately, the initial starting point for each charge should be no higher than 36 months’ imprisonment (HKSAR v Cheung Po Yi [2024] HKDC 1570).

21.  Mr Chan raised no objection to the enhancement application but asked the court to consider an enhancement of not more than 20% and referred the court to a number of cases which include HKSAR v Xiang Juan [2024] HKDC 512, HKSAR v Zhang Hongping [2025] HKDC 603, HKSAR v Chan Ho Yin and Another [2025] HKDC 1900, HKSAR v Wu Jing [2026] HKDC 247.

22.  Lastly, it was submitted that the offences in this case were of a similar nature, arise from the same facts and were overlapping in terms of proximity of time, a concurrent sentence was asked for, if not, a substantial portion of sentence for Charge 2 to run concurrently with Charge 1.

SENTENCE

23.  The maximum penalty for the offence of money laundering is 14 years’ imprisonment.  There is no sentencing tariff for this offence.  Money laundering is a serious offence.

24.  In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court of Appeal listed the following factors for consideration when determining the appropriate sentence:

(a) The amount of money involved was a major consideration, not the amount of benefit received by a defendant in the transaction.

(b) The culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, support and encouragement offered to the commission of an indictable offence. So a defendant’s level of participation and the number of occasions on which he is involved in the ‘money laundering’ activities are relevant factors to be considered.

(c) The offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence does not necessarily have any direct correlation with the indictable offence in question. However if the relevant indictable offence can be identified, the court may take into account the sentence imposed on the indictable offence per se when determining the sentence of the dealing offence.

(d) If the case has an international element involving activities carried out across different regions, the court may impose a more severe sentence. This is to protect Hong Kong’s reputation as an international finance and banking hub from being tarnished.

(e) The length of time the offence lasted.

25.  In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal listed some of the significant features which the sentencing court should take into account.  The list is non-exhaustive, they include:

(a) the nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the penalty available for the predicate offence;

(b) the state of the offender’s knowledge;

(c) where the operation involved an international dimension, this would be a significant aggravating feature;

(d) the sophistication of the offence, including the degree of planning; whether deceit was practiced to achieve the objective;

(e) where the offence was committed or on behalf of an organized criminal syndicate would be an aggravating feature;

(f) whether there was one transaction or many and the length of time over which the offence was committed;

(g) whether the offender continued to launder funds after he had discovered the nature of funds were proceeds of an offence or a serious offence was involved; and

(h) the role of the offender and the acts performed by him.

26.  In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the Court of Appeal listed out the factors relevant to sentencing. The Court also confirmed that a starting point of 3 years or so was taken when the black money involved was between $1 to 2 million; and where the black money involved was between $3 to 6 million, the starting point was about 4 years or so and could be over 5 years where it was above $10 million.

27.  InSecretary of Justice v Xie Zhijian（谢志建）[2025] HKCA 911 the Court of Appeal stated that the amount of money involved is not the main consideration for sentencing.  The court should have given regard to the overall circumstances/impression of the case.

28.  As regards to the length of time of the offence, for charge 1, was between 16 March 2021 and 27 September 2021, but the number of transactions and the length of time over which consisted of 51 deposits made over the course of 9 days.  The money involved was around HKD2,424,745.  As for charge 2, the length of time of the offence was between 9 March 2021 and 19 January 2023.  The number of deposits totalled 40. It covered a period of around 13 months (9 March 2021 to 7 April 2022) when the 40 deposits were made.  The funds were withdrawn on the day of each deposit, therefore, the total amount of withdrawals was almost the same as the amount of deposits.  The money involved was around HKD2,813,004.64.  It was noted that A/C2 involved 4 other currencies which included USD, GBP, AUD and EUR.

29.  Taking into account of the nature of the offence that D was facing, the facts of the case admitted, the duration of the offences, D’s level of participation and background, the mitigation submitted by the defence and the relevant authorities, the sentence of charge 1 and 2 are as follows:

For Charge 1, I adopt a starting point of 36 months’ imprisonment, after one-third discount upon D’s guilty plea, the sentence is 24 months’ imprisonment.

For Charge 2, I adopt a starting point of 39 months’ imprisonment, after one-third discount upon D’s guilty plea, the sentence is 26 months’ imprisonment.

ENHANCEMENT

30.  The Prosecution applied for an enhancement of sentence pursuant to section 27(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance.  The application was not opposed by the Defence, however, a lower level of enhancement was asked for.  As stated in Chief Inspector Li’s statement, anti-money regime in Hong Kong is hampered by the prevalence of stooges for money laundering activities as follows:

(a) It interferes with the normal operation of the banking system, having a negative effect on the reputation of Hong Kong as an international financial hub;

(b) It forms multiple layers of “shields” concealing the identity of the masterminds behind, making it difficult, for police to identify the masterminds behind;

(c) It facilitates the commission of crimes and in turn leads to more crimes being committed, as the mastermind could easily get away with the criminal liability;

(d) The prevalence of stooge accounts makes money laundering easier, which allows culprits to make use of their ill-gotten gains to extend their sphere to engage in a wider range of illegal activities;

(e) The law enforcement agencies have to put in more investigation efforts and resources; and

(f) People with low income or less awareness of the consequence of selling their bank accounts are more likely to be lured by the culprits to take the risks of commission of crimes to surrender their accounts for monetary reward.

31.  The information provided by Chief Inspector Li covered the data for period between 2020 and 2025.  Though the numbers of reported cases and arrested persons in 2025 involving the use of stooge accounts were less than the numbers in 2024, the amount of reported losses and cases were still substantial[3]. There is no doubt that this type of offence remains prevalent in the community[4].

32.  Having considered all the information and the relevant authorities of HKSAR v Lee Yuek Sing & Anor CACC 515/2001 and HKSAR v 楊鎧駿 CACC 135/2024, I am satisfied that enhancement of sentence is appropriate in this case.  I am of the view that 25% enhancement is appropriate having regarded to all the circumstances.  As a result, after the enhancement by 25%, for Charge 1, the sentence is 30 months’ imprisonment, as for Charge 2, the sentence is 32 months’ imprisonment.

TOTALITY

33.  Taking into account the totality principle, the global sum of both charges, some period of time of both charges overlapped yet two different bank accounts were involved in this case and having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, I find that a sentence of 35 months is appropriate in reflecting the overall criminality of the case.  I order that 3 months of Charge 1 to run consecutive with Charge 2.

34.  There is no other mitigating factor which justifies a reduction of sentence.

CONCLUSION

35.  The sentence of D is 35 months’ imprisonment.