HKSAR v. JIANG CHUNGUANG

DCCC 1241/2025

[2026] HKDC 421

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1241 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to 6 charges of "Money laundering". In short, he "sold" his bank accounts to someone.

Summary of Facts

2.  On 28 June 2024, the defendant opened the 6 bank accounts as particularized in Charges 1 to 6 (Accounts 1 to 6).  He was the sole signatory of all 6 accounts.

Deception

3.  Between July and September 2024, a total of 14 victims (PWs 1 to 14)  were deceived by 2 types of scams, namely "Boost-sale jobs" and "Bogus bank staff".  They were asked to make payments to various bank accounts, which aggregated to a sum of $17.8 million, of which a total sum of $889,458.47 were paid to Accounts 1 to 6 between 1 and 10 July 2024.

Money laundering

Charge 1

4.  Between 3 July and 12 September 2024, Account 1 received 47 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $517,797.83 (of which a total sum of $23,600 came from PWs 3, 4 and 12).  The exact aggregated sum of $517,797.83 was withdrawn by 47 transactions.

Charge 2

5.  Between 2 and 3 July 2024, Account 2 received 24 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $641,405.14 (of which a total sum of $79,300 came from PWs 1 and 2).  A total sum of $641,391 was withdrawn by 29 transactions.

Charge 3

6.  Between 4 and 9 July 2024, Account 3 received 34 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $190,242.87 (of which a total sum of $62,666.87 came from PWs 7, 8, 9 and 14).  A total sum of $190,241 was withdrawn by 33 transactions.

Charge 4

7.  Between 3 July and 13 September 2024, Account 4 received 48 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $774,822.02 (of which a total sum of $626,900 came from PWs 10 and 11). The exact aggregated sum of $774,822.02 was withdrawn by 37 transactions.

Charge 5

8.  Between 3 and 5 July 2024, Account 5 received 13 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $158,087 (of which a total sum of $50,939 came from PWs 5 and 6).  A total sum of $158,050 was withdrawn by 14 transactions.

Charge 6

9.  Between 4 and 11 July 2024, Account 6 received 61 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $627,311.70 (of which a total sum of $46,052.70 came from PWs 10 and 13).  The exact aggregated sum of $627,311.70 was withdrawn by 43 transactions.

10.  Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals, the police found a "mirror pattern" in those transactions, which is a typical indicator of money laundering.

Arrest

11.  The defendant was arrested on 30 December 2024 when he entered Hong Kong at Lo Wu Control Point.

12.  In his video recorded interviews, the defendant admitted having opened Accounts 2 and 5 in June 2024.  He claimed that he met a male surnamed Liao on the streets in Shenzhen.  Liao asked him to open bank accounts with the Bank of China and HSBC in Hong Kong for Liao to use for stock investment.  Liao promised to give 30% of his investment profit to the defendant.  The defendant then came to Hong Kong with an unidentified male friend of Liao and opened the 2 accounts. Afterwards, he gave all the bank documents (including bank cards)  to Liao's friend and returned to the mainland.  When the defendant tried to pursue Liao for his reward, Liao blocked him.  He could no longer contact Liao or Liao's friend.

13.  Regarding Accounts 1, 3, 4 and 6, the defendant confirmed that the identity documents and selfie photos contained in the account opening materials were his.  He gave various explanations for how Liao obtained his identity documents and selfie photos. The defendant denied having opened these 4 bank accounts.

14.  According to the Immigration Department, between 1 July 2014 and 7 December 2024, the defendant had only taken a day trip to Hong Kong on 28 June 2024.

15.  The defendant's income and tax records (or the lack of them)  are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by Accounts 1 to 6.

16.  The defendant now admits that he opened Accounts 1 to 6 to allow Liao and another unknown person to use them.  He also passed all 6 bank accounts to Liao and another unknown person.

Mitigation & Sentence

17. The defendant is a mainland resident. He is 38 and has a clear record. Defence counsel Mr. Yuen informed me that the defendant is married with a daughter (aged 6). He was a part-time hotel waiter and a security guard, earning about RMB1,500 per month. The defendant reside with his parents (both aged over 70). In mitigation, Mr. Yuen submitted that the defendant had no knowledge of or involvement in any predicate offence.

18. The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant to section 27(2)(c)  and (d)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap.455)  on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm caused to the community. Mr. Yuen did not object.

19. I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was)  held "Under section 27(11)  of OSCO, what the prosecution has to prove is the prevalence of the offence, not the increase in the number of such offences[1]."

20. I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 13 February 2026. I am satisfied that in 2024, deception-related money laundering cases were prevalent in Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the total value of monetary loss.

21. There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money laundering through bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" remains widespread in Hong Kong today. What true criminals need are gullible scapegoats, like the defendant in the present case, who would take the blame for them when law enforcement takes action. The court must send a clear message to the general public that people who play the role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a deterrent effect. When there are few or no willing "ML Stooges", criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts will fail.

22. This is a typical case of money laundering by way of stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the scams against PWs 1 to 14, such scams would have been meaningless without his bank accounts. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given his role, the total sums which went through his 6 accounts and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

23. The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 held :-

Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward.[2]

24. In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have also borne in mind the amounts of money involved, the duration of the offences, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as his personal circumstances.

25. In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P held :-

Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money"was actually not derived from an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…[3]

Charge 1

26. I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i)  except the total sum of $23,600 from PWs 3, 4 and 12, the funds received by Account 1 were related to any predicate offence; and (ii)  the defendant was involved in or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of Account 1, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

27. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of $517,797.83 went through Account 1 within a period of 2.5 months. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through Account 1, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s)  of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

28. In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 16 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

29. An aggregated sum of $641,405.14 went through Account 2 within a period of 6 days, of which $79,300 were from PWs 1 and 2. I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 16 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 3

30. An aggregated sum of $190,242.87 went through Account 3 within a period of 12 days, of which $62,666.87 were from PWs 7, 8, 9 and 14. I adopt a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 8 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 10 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 4

31. An aggregated sum of $774,822.02 went through Account 4 within a period of 2.5 months, of which $626,900 were from PWs 10 and 11. I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 16 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 5

32. An aggregated sum of $158,087 went through Account 5 within a period of 8 days, of which $50,939 were from PWs 5 and 6. I adopt a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 8 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 10 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 6

33. An aggregated sum of $627,311.70 went through Account 6 within a period of 1.5 months, of which $46,052.70 were from PWs 10 and 13. I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 16 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

34. The grand total received by Accounts 1 to 6 was $2.9 million odd. I consider a global starting point of 3.5 years' imprisonment[5] appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 28 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 35 months. Hence, I order the sentences for the 6 charges to run in the following manner:

(i)  3 months in Charge 2 consecutive to Charge 1;

(ii)  3 months in Charge 3 consecutive to Charges 1 and 2;

(iii)  3 months in Charge 4 consecutive to Charges 1 to 3;

(iv)  3 months in Charge 5 consecutive to Charges 1 to 4; and

(v)  3 months in Charge 6 consecutive to Charges 1 to 5.