HKSAR v. FUNG NGAN MING

DCCC 1457/2025

[2026] HKDC 1633

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1457 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.  D pleaded guilty to one count of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (“money laundering”), contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455 (“OSCO”).

Facts

2.  Three victims of a series of online investment frauds (“Vs”) were lured by scammers into remitting funds to various bank accounts, including depositing a total of HK$ 1,365,908.19 between 13 and 16 March 2023 into the Bank of China account (“BOC A/C”) particularised in the Charge.

The BOC A/C

3.  This account was opened by D on 11 December 2015. He was the sole authorised signatory of this account. On the account opening mandate, D claimed to be unemployed. He applied for a BOC card and requested for bank statements to be sent to his registered address in Yau Oi Estate, Tuen Mun.

4.  Fund flow analysis shows that between 13 December 2022 and 13 April 2023, there were 51 deposits totalling $5,783,409.91 (including deposits from Vs) and the funds were all withdrawn via 75 transactions. All the funds, once deposited, were siphoned off on the same day, leaving a low daily balance. Hallmarks of money laundering was observed and the account was used as a temporary repository of funds.

5.  D was arrested on 10 January 2024 and on 21 March 2024 respectively. During a cautioned video-recorded interview, D admitted having sold the BOC A/C for $1,000 in January 2023 to someone he had come to know via a social media app by surrendering his BOC card together with its passwords to two young men with whom he had stayed in 3 different hotels for 7 days. However, he could not provide details of these people to the police.

6.  The large sums of money received by the BOC A/C were not supported by any official proof such as tax returns. D did not own any property or company.

7.  D now admits having dealt with the property particularised in the Charge knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that said the property represented proceeds of an indictable offence.

D’s Background

8.  D is 53 years old, divorced and has no children. He lives with his mother. He was a security guard at the time of his arrest but has been unemployed since July 2025. He has been suffering from bilateral hip problem since he was young and he had a right total hip replacement operation in 2016. He is now awaiting a left total hip replacement operation.

9.  He has 2 previous convictions for conspiracy to defraud.

Mitigation

10.  Defence counsel Mr Terry Kan submitted that the main mitigating factor is D’s plea of guilty.  D did not know the source of the “black money”. No international element is involved in this case. D played a minor role as a money laundering stooge.  

11.  D indicates in his letter to the Court that he is remorseful and will not re-offend again. In their mitigation letters to the Court, both D and his mother talk about D’s congenital pelvic dislocation problem and the inconvenience and disadvantage brought about by such a condition. Both mother and son asked for the Court’s leniency in dealing with D.

12.  With regard to sentencing principles, Mr Kan acknowledged that the maximum sentence for the offence is 14 years’ imprisonment, that there are no sentencing guidelines and that the main sentencing factor is the amount of “black money” involved.

13.  Counsel referred to the cases of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi (許有益) [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 for some of the significant considerations in sentencing for this type of offence. He also cited paragraphs 12 to 15 of the judgment in Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung (雲國強) [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, which pointed out that money laundering is a serious offence, that generally the sentence should mainly reflect the amount of “black money” laundered, and that according to the amounts of money involved and the sentences passed in the cases set out by Cheung JA in Hsu Yu Yi, the sentencing starting point is 3 years or so where the “black money” involved is between 1 million and 2 million dollars, 4 years or so where it is between 3 million and 6 million dollars, and could be over 5 years where it is above 10 million dollars. In HKSAR v Liao Liting (廖麗婷) CACC 334/2015, the Court of Appeal confirmed that these starting points are for reference and are not sentencing guidelines.

14.  In Secretary for Justice v Tse Chi Kin（謝志建）CAAR 4/2024, the Court of Appeal pointed out that in dealing with money laundering sentencing, the court should bear in mind on the one hand, the maximum statutory penalty and the necessity for a deterrent sentence; on the other hand, the specific facts of the case and the judge’s overall impression of the matter, rather than relying solely on generalised sentencing ranges based merely on the monetary amount involved.

15.  In light of the amount of “black money” involved in our case, counsel suggested a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment.

16.   Counsel did not oppose the application for the enhancement of sentence under OSCO, and invited the Court to enhance the sentence by 25% only.

Sentencing considerations

17.  Money laundering is a serious offence which attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.

18.  It is a serious offence as it is an attempt to legitimise proceeds from criminal activities. Successful deterrents against money laundering could be effective measures against crime. No guidelines for sentence of such an offence have been laid down as the crime can be committed in a variety of ways and there is a wide range of culpability.

19.  According to Hsu Yu Yi, the factors to be considered in sentencing for this offence are: i) the amount of money involved is a major consideration; ii) the offender’s level of participation; iii) the sentence imposed on the predicate offence if it can be known; iv) if the case has an international element; and v) the length of time the offence lasted.

20.  The Court of Appeal in Boma emphasized the importance of deterrence for this kind of offence, pointed out that the amount of money laundered was an important but not the only one consideration, and set out a non-exhaustive list of other significant considerations, which includes: i) the nature of the predicate offence; ii) the state of the offender’s knowledge; iii) whether an international element was involved; iv) the sophistication of the offence; v) whether organised criminal syndicate was involved; vi) the number of transactions and length of the offence; vii) whether the offender continued to launder funds after knowing that they were proceeds of a serious crime; and viii) the offender’s role and the acts performed by him.

21.  There are also the observations made by the Court of Appeal in Wan Kwok Keung regarding the starting points for different amounts of money laundered set out in Hsu Yu Yi namely, the starting point is 3 years or so where the proceeds involved is between HK$1 million and HK$2 million, 4 years or so where it is between HK$3 million and HK$6 million, and could be over 5 years where it is above HK$10 million. The Court of Appeal in Liao Liting remarked that while these starting points are not sentencing guidelines, they provide valuable reference[1].

22.  One should of course also bear in mind what the Court of Appeal said in Tse Chi Kin about the approach to take in sentencing money laundering offences.

23.  This case involves laundering about $5.7 million in 4 months.

24.  D was obviously a money laundering stooge, having given up control of his bank account for reward. There is no evidence to show that he had knowledge of or took part in the predicate offence, or the existence of other aggravating factors. His culpability falls towards the lower end of the “gradations of culpability” referred to by Stock JA in Boma.

25.  Given that this is a very serious offence which calls for deterrent sentence even for a first-time offender, I would adopt 4 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for the Charge.

26.  D’s guilty plea, which would entitle him to a one-third discount, would reduce the sentence in respect of the Charge to 32 months’ imprisonment.

Sentence Enhancement under OSCO

27.  A statement dated 24 August 2026 made by Chief Inspector LI Yiu-nam (“the statement”) of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment of the Financial and Intelligence Bureau was tendered by the prosecution in support of its application under section 27(2) of OSCO to enhance the sentence on the grounds of prevalence and the nature and extent of harm caused to the community.

28.  The statement describes someone who has assisted in money laundering activities but has minimal or no involvement in the predicate offence or has little or no knowledge about the predicate offence as a money laundering stooge.

29.  The statement shows that the number of money laundering stooges arrested in 2024 was 7,883 (the highest number of stooges arrested since 2020), accounting for 75.1 % of all the persons arrested in fraud and money laundering cases. For the year 2025, the corresponding figures were 5,355 arrests and 71% respectively. From January to July 2026, the number of stooges arrested was 3,696, accounting for 72.34% of all the persons arrested in fraud and money laundering cases.

30.  The amount of total loss and/or proceeds laundered reached its peak in 2022, with a figure of $35,549.21 million. The total amount of loss in 2025 was $4,577.64 million, and the total loss in January to July 2026 was $1,563.79 million.

31.  Although the statistics show that the number of stooges arrested and the total amount of loss have both declined from their respective peaks, this offence, which is a “specified offence” under OSCO, is still prevalent and causing tremendous harm to the community.

32.  I am satisfied that this case calls for sentence enhancement. A 25% enhancement is appropriate.

33.  Thus enhanced, the sentence in respect of the Charge becomes 40 months’ imprisonment.