HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI WAH

DCCC1319/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1319 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence. The particulars are that between 14 November 1997 and 25 June 1999, together with his brother-in-law, Mr Li Kam-ming, he dealt with over HK$38.1 million, having reasonable grounds to believe that it represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.

2.  Between 1997 and 1999, the police conducted an anti-crime operation.  Suspicious transactions were discovered going through the defendant’s account.  The account was held with the Hang Seng Bank in the defendant’s name, and between November 1997 and June of 1999, the total deposits and withdrawals were $38,157,601.89 and $38,157,191.38 respectively.  Cash deposits amounted to over $26.6 million, and that represented some 69.9 per cent of the total deposits.  Cash withdrawals amounted to an excess of $9.3 million, representing some 24.49 per cent of the total withdrawal.  A total sum of just over 12.6 million was transferred to an account under the name of Li Kam-ming between December 97 and May of 99.

3.  Inquiries with the Inland Revenue Department revealed that the defendant did not file any tax returns between 1994 and the year 2000. 

4.  The defendant was arrested by the police when he visited Hong Kong from Canada on 4 November 2010.  In a video‑recorded interview conducted the following day, the defendant admitted that the account was opened by him.  He admitted that he never filed any tax returns in Hong Kong, and he admitted that Li was his brother-in-law.

5.  In further interviews, he admitted that he was engaged in bookmaking for horse-racing and football games together with his brother-in-law.  The defendant claimed that the account was opened by him but was operated by his brother-in-law.  He said that his brother-in-law had used the account to receive bets from bookmaking activities.  He further admitted having signed some deposit slips for Li to process bank transactions.

6.  The defendant is 48 years of age.  He has a clear record.  He lives in Canada together with his wife and three children who, I understand, are studying at universities in Toronto.  He returned to Hong Kong for a funeral and was arrested at the airport.

7.  I have had placed before me a report from the Birchwood Walk-in Clinic in Ontario which sets out certain medical problems which the defendant has.  He has been suffering for some time from severe neck and back pain, and he also suffers from diabetes.

8.  In mitigation, it has been urged upon me that not only did the defendant plead guilty today but he made full and frank admissions to the police when he was arrested.  It was urged upon me that the defendant was not the mastermind in this operation.  That was his brother-in-law, Mr Li.  I am told that Mr Li has not been arrested and is believed to be living in China.  I am told that in the period in question, 1997 to 1999, Li was operating a clubhouse for members where they could attend to play mahjong, purchase alcohol, and that the defendant was given a job in that establishment by Li.  In 1998, the economic climate was not good, and I am told that the defendant received a salary of some twenty-five to thirty thousand dollars per month, and he was persuaded by Li to open the account through which the moneys were laundered.

9.  As rightly suggested, there is no international element involved in this offence.  However, the amount involved is huge, in excess of $38 million.  The Court of Appeal has said that money laundering is a very serious offence as it is an attempt to legitimise proceeds from criminal activities.  The court has said that successful deterrence against money laundering will be effective measures against crime. 

10.  I accept what has been said by the counsel for the defendant in mitigation that the defendant was not the mastermind in this case; that compared to the mastermind, his rewards were modest; and he was co-operative with the police when he was arrested.

11.  However, the moneys laundered in this case were laundered over a period of two years and involved very large sums, the majority of which were put through the accounts paid into and withdrawn from in cash.

12.  Having considered all those features of the case, I have decided that the appropriate starting point for this offence is a sentence of 6 years.  The defendant is to be given credit for his guilty plea, so that sentence will be reduced to 4 years’ imprisonment.