HKSAR v. WONG KIN SING

DCCC304/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 304 OF 2012

____________

____________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

1. Overview

The prosecution alleges that there was no sale of cotton knitted fabric (goods) as purported from the documents of sale from the defendant’s solely owned company Joint Glory Limited (Joint Glory) to a company named Hechter International Limited (Hechter). It is the prosecution case that the proceeds paid under a letter of credit for the sale of goods from Joint Glory was a sham to disguise or conceal funds which were the proceeds of an indictable offence.

2. The defendant’s company Joint Glory was set up in January 2009.  Its bank account was opened about a month later with an initial deposit of $1,000.  Approximately another month later in March, a sum of HK$2.3 million was deposited into Joint Glory’s bank account as proceeds of a letter of credit. 

3. The following day on 5 March 2009, the defendant withdrew from the sum deposited by remittance the sum of $2.25 million into a company called Full Interest Enterprise (HK) Company Limited (Full Interest) bank account.  

4. The remaining balance of the proceeds of the letter of credit in Joint Glory’s bank account was withdrawn by the defendant at the end of the month leaving its account overdrawn.  Full Interest than transferred HK$2.2 million to a company called Fortune Grand Asia Limited (Fortune Grand).

5. The defendant is charged with an offence commonly known as money laundering.  It is alleged that the defendant on or about 5 March 2009 knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the sum of HK$2.25 million he remitted to Full Interest’s account were the proceeds of an indictable offence. 

6. Joint Glory’s ledger accounts did not show any transaction for the sale of goods, contrarily, it showed the proceeds from the letter of credit were a debt owed to the defendant.  The ledger confirmed that Joint Glory made no profit from the purported contract of sale or any transaction.

7. Common to the companies, Joint Glory, Hechter, Full Interest and Fortune Grand, were males by the name of Tang Sai Dick or Dick Tang (Tang) and Felix Liu Man Yau (Felix). 

8. The defendant’s case was that there was an underlying contract for the sale of goods.  Good were received by Hechter as evidenced by a cargo receipt and hence there was no predicate offence and the proceeds from the letter of credit were not proceeds of an indictable offence.

9. Alternatively, if the court found there was no underlying contract of sale.  It is the defendant’s case that he trusted and believed in his long time friend Tang, whom conducted with the defendant’s knowledge, the contract of sale to Hechter on behalf of Joint Glory.  

10. The defendant therefore had no knowledge nor did he have reasonable grounds to believe that the proceeds from the letter of credit were proceeds of an indictable offence.  He believed it was a genuine contract of sale conducted by Tang.

11. The issues

The issues in the case are whether: -

(i) the cargo receipt evidence a contract for the sale of goods?

(ii) there was a contract underlying the letter of credit?

(iii) did the defendant know or did he have reasonable grounds to believe that the whole or at least part of the money represented the proceeds of an indictable offence?

12. The law

In an offence of dealing with the proceeds of an indictable offence the prosecution need not prove the commission of the original indictable offence that gave rise to the proceeds. The prosecution is required to prove that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the property represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.

13. In the present case the prosecution have sought to establish the indictable offence is one of fraud.  However it matters not that the predicate offence is not established nor known. 

14. Reasonable grounds to believe contains objective and subjective elements: -

(a)the objective element requires proof that they were grounds that a common sense, right-thinking member of the community would consider sufficient to lead a person to believe that the property in whole or in part represented any persons proceeds of an indictable offence;

(b)the subjective element requires proof that the defendant knew or was aware of the existence of those reasonable grounds.

15. I bear in mind it is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubt and no onus whatsoever lies upon the defendant.

16. The witnesses

The prosecution called three witnesses. PW1 was the sole director and shareholder of Hechter. He was the applicant for the letter of credit and purported buyer of the goods from Joint Glory. PW2 was an ex-employee of Hechter who signed the cargo receipt on behalf of Hechter. PW3 was an employee of PW1 whom signed on the cargo receipt.

17. The defendant elected not to give evidence nor call any defence witnesses. 

18. The Evidence

The entirety of the prosecution case was admitted by the defendant. The admitted facts and its exhibits were produced as PA1. The video recorded interview under caution was admitted by the defendant to have been given voluntarily (exhibit P9). The statements made by the defendant under caution were mixed. The defendant did not challenge the viva voce evidence of the prosecution witnesses.

19. The facts

Transactions

Joint Glory was on 9 January 2009 incorporated under the Companies Ordinance (Cap 32). On the same day the defendant on behalf of Joint Glory applied for a Hong Kong dollar current and multi-currencies savings account at Citic International Limited.

20. On 12 February 2009, an initial opening deposit of HK$1,000.00 was paid into the current account by a cheque in the name of Liu Man Yau.

21. By an Irrevocable Documentary Credit Application (Exhibit P11) dated 26 February 2009, Hechter applied to Hang Seng Bank for the issue of an irrevocable documentary credit in favour of Joint Glory in the amount of HKD2,300,000.00 plus or minus 5% for goods described as “cotton knitted fabric”

22. By an Irrevocable Documentary Credit numbered DC TSE 718967 FF (exhibit P12), dated 27 February 2009, issued subject to the Uniform Customs and Practice for Documentary Credits (2007 Revision), International Chamber of Commerce Publication No 600, and naming Hechter as applicant and Joint Glory as beneficiary, Hang Seng Bank as issuing bank undertook to pay HKD2,300,000 plus or minus 5% against documents including signed commercial invoice in triplicate, packing list in triplicate and cargo receipt dated not later than 10 March 2009 issued and signed by the applicant evidencing receipt of the goods.

23. The defendant signed an invoice numbered JG1476 from Joint Glory to Hechter dated 28 February 2009 for HK$2,300,054.00 (exhibit P13), which was stated to be the price of "Cotton Knitted Fabric" with a total weight of 98,194 lbs, payment terms "L/C AT SIGHT" and a delivery dated of 28 February 2009.

24. Joint Glory's invoice to Hechter numbered JG1476 and dated 28 February 2009 (exhibit P13) was submitted to Citic Bank on or about 2 March 2009 for presenting to Hang Seng Bank under documentary credit number DC TSE 718967 FU with the request that the proceeds, in the amount of HKD2,300,054.00 be credited to Joint Glory's bank account numbered 694-2-46714600. (exhibit P14)

25. On or about 2 March 2009, Joint Glory also submitted a cargo receipt in the name of Hechter (exhibit P15)

26. The invoice P13 and the Cargo receipt P15 were submitted to Citic Bank under the Defendant’s signature.

27. By a letter dated 2 March 2009 from Citic Bank to Hang Seng Bank (exhibit P16), Citic Bank presented documents for collection under Hang Seng Bank's documentary credit number DC TSE718967FF.

28. On 4 March 2009, the sum of HKD2,290,526.86 was deposited to Joint Glory's account number 694-2-46714600 (exhibit P17).

29. On 5 March 2009, Joint Glory (by the Defendant) instructed Citic Bank to remit, and Citic Bank remitted, the sum of HKD2,250,000.00 less bank charges to Full Interest's account number 344-82-05075-1 with Shanghai Commercial Bank Limited (exhibit P18).

30. On 5 March 2009, Full Interest transferred the sum of HKD2,200,000.00 to Fortune Grand.

31. On 24 March 2009, Joint Glory drew a cheque numbered 1 on its Citic Bank account for HKD45,000.00 in favour of cash, which after a bank charge of HKD50.00 left its account HK48.21 overdrawn as at 31 March 2009. The said cheque for HK$45,000.00 was deposited to Fortune Grand's account numbered 344-82-05019-0.

32. On 2 July 2009, Hechter made full repayment to Hang Seng Bank of its import loan for Irrevocable Documentary Credit numbered DC TSE718967FF plus transaction fees in the amount of HKD2,301,508.39, which sum was debited from its account numbered 368-193124-001.

33. On 15 November 2010 the late Mackintosh J made a production order addressed to the defendant and Joint Glory.  The defendant provided various documents which included the ledger accounts (exhibit P10), the invoice (exhibit P13), the cargo receipt (exhibit P15), banking documents of which one was the bank statement of Joint Glory dated 31 March 2009 (exhibit P17), and other documents in relation to the L/C (No DC 718967) issued by Hang Seng Bank on behalf of Hechter to Joint Glory.

34. On 13 May 2010, the defendant attended a video recorded interview (VRI), conducted by PC2425 at Kwai Chung Police Station from 1:54pm to 2:50pm.  The English translation of the transcript is marked as Exhibit P9C.

35. PW1’s evidence

PW1 is a 65 years old male businessman. He has been in the business of trading since 1967. He established Hechter in August 2004. Hechter did business in garment manufacturing. It was wholly owned by PW1.

36. In June 2004 PW2 joined Hechter and was the accounts clerk in charge of the accounts. 

37. In 2007 PW1 came to know Tang and Felix.  He had had business dealing with them both and their companies.  In August 2007 he agreed to a suggestion to amalgamate Hechter’s business with Fortune Grand’s. The staff of Hechter (including PW2 and PW3) then moved to the offices of Fortune Grand in Kwai Chung.  PW1 did not however move his office.  His office remained in Wanchai. 

38. Sometime later (after the purported sale of goods from Joint Glory to Hechter), PW1 on the one hand and Tang and Felix on the other ran into disagreements on how to run the company.  Eventually the merger was never formally completed. 

39. In 2009 however the companies (Hechter and Fortune Grand) were working as though they had merged. 

40. In February 2009 when the application for the letter of credit was made PW1 relations with Tang and Felix were still harmonious.  Hechter’s operation or sales production were done through Tang or Felix.  Although PW2 was working at the offices of Fortune Grand she was still responsible for accounting for Hechter on behalf of PW1. 

41. Whilst relations were still harmonious with Tang and Felix, PW1 would confirm and issue it on behalf of Hechter without question all the letter of credit applications, if they were initialled by PW2, Tang or Felix.  PW2 would bring the application for him to sign at his office in Wanchai.

42. The present letter of credit was applied for simply because Tang and Felix had authorised PW2 to make the application.  PW1 approved the application for the letter of credit only because there was an initial from PW2 on the application.  His signature was on the left of the letter of credit and PW2’s was on the right.  He acknowledged that he had signed and applied for the issue of the letter of credit. 

43. PW1 however knew nothing about this contract for the sale of goods between Joint Glory and Hechter at all.  He knew nothing about Joint Glory or the defendant. 

44. PW1 said when he checked the present letter of credit concerning Joint Glory after relations with Tang and Felix had turned sour, a long time later, he noticed the letter of credit was completely different from all other letter of credits.  He said usually for other letter of credits Hechter’s purchase orders would be attached.  The bank would make the letter of credit according to Hechter’s purchase order.  However in the present letter of credit there was no purchase order, no packing list, no style, no colour, no quantity.  All stated was cotton knitted fabric.  As it was very simple on reflection he said it gave rise to suspicion. 

45. PW2’s evidence

PW2 worked for Hechter as an accounts clerk since 2004. In 2007 she was transferred to work from Hechter to Fortune Grand. She came to know Tang and Felix. Despite working for Fortune Grand she however still continued to do work for Hechter.

46. PW2 said PW1 told her to prepare the letter of credit and gave her the information to include in the application.  It was her usual practice to sign on the letter of credit or any form she had prepared.

47. PW2 said that she would usually give the cargo receipt to PW1 to sign however if PW1 was not in Hong Kong at the time when the cargo receipt was issued PW1 would give his instructions to sign on it and tell her to give it to PW3 to sign. 

48. PW2 had issued and signed on the cargo receipt. She had never seen the goods concerning this transaction with Joint Glory. 

49. PW3 evidence

PW3 was employed by Henson Corporation (Henson) a company owned by PW1. She however assisted PW1 with Hechter. Hechter and Henson shared the same office.

50. In October 2007 she said PW1 allowed Tang and Felix to manage Hechter.  She continued to do some work with Hechter. 

51. PW3 said that it was Tang or Felix who asked PW2 to issue this letter of credit application.  She signed on the cargo receipt as she had seen PW2’s initial on the cargo receipt.  She said that PW2 had signed on the cargo receipt as she had received confirmation for such a transaction from Tang or Felix. 

52. PW3 did not see or witness the actual receipt of the goods despite signing the cargo receipt. 

53. The defendant’s case

The defendant’s case is derived from his statements made in the VRI on the 13 May 2010.

54. The defendant stated that although Joint Glory was solely owned by him, it with set up together with his long time friend Tang Sai Dick whom he called Dick Tang.  The defendant was the boss in name only.  Principally Joint Glory was set up so that the defendant and Tang could fulfil their 20 year long dream to do business together in the trading of goods.  He considered Tang’s capacity in Joint Glory as a consultant.

55. The defendant had however not brought in any business to Joint Glory.  Tang had conducted the business of Joint Glory.  The defendant had not conducted any business or operations through Joint Glory.  He was paid no wages, he had received no money and received no benefit from Joint Glory.  Since Joint Glory was set up he did not have to work, he brought in no work, the daily work was mainly done by Tang. 

56. Tang was the sole person involved in the sale of goods from Joint Glory to Hechter.  Although the defendant signed all the documents related to the sale of the goods from Joint Glory to Hechter and the transfer of sums from Joint Glory’s bank accounts, all or any involvement by the defendant in the transaction was only on the direction of Tang.  He knew nothing about the sale to Hechter save that Tang had mentioned the trading of some textile cloth.  He was however not clear about the quantity, nor the amount involved or how many transactions there were. 

57. The defendant remembers he signed the invoice from Joint Glory to Hechter in the amount of $2.354 million.  He was not sure about the source or the use of the $2.3 million. 

58. The defendant had not seen the cargo receipt. He had no knowledge about the cotton textile cloth mentioned in the cargo receipt. 

59. To facilitate Tang doing some trading business at Joint Glory the defendant had signed about 20 blank cheques in advance and left them with a Miss Tin Wai Sum (Tin).  The defendant had authorised Tin to operate the bank account of Joint Glory at Citic and to assist him in managing Joint Glory as he had his own job in Tsuen Wan. 

60. The defendant understood that these blank cheques he signed were for settling the payment to some processing factories.

61. When the defendant signed the blank cheques he told Tang not to use the cheques for unlawful means.  Tang promised the defendant he would use those cheques for entirely lawful means. 

62. The defendant said he trusted the conduct of Tang very much.  He opined that Tang was an honest man and that he would not transgress the law.  The defendant had no reason to doubt or suspect that Tang would be involved in illegal activities.  The defendant had known Tang for some 20 years and trusted him totally.  He knew that Tang himself had set up and managed a very large company himself.  As Tang had set up a large company he was not named as a joint owner of Joint Glory.

63. Submissions

Mr Andrew Kan counsel for the defendant submitted that the prosecution case must fail as on their own case there was evidence of goods as evidenced by the cargo receipt issued by Hechter. Mr Kan made the same submissions at the close of the prosecution case as in his submissions of no case to answer.

64. In Mr Kan’s closing submissions he submitted that it was acceptable for the defendant to trust Tang would conduct legitimate legal business through Joint Glory in view of their well established lengthy friendship and knowledge that the defendant had of Tang’s experience in managing and operating a very large company of his own. 

65. In view of what the defendant knew about Tang there was no reason for the defendant to question Tang about his operations in Joint Glory or with any business transactions Tang had conducted on behalf of Joint Glory. 

66. Analysis

I turn to the issues.

(i) Does the cargo receipt (exhibit P15) evidence a genuine contract for the sale of goods

It was contended by Mr Kan on behalf of the defendant that the cargo receipt evidences a contract for the sale of goods. In other words Hechter did receive the goods as purchased.

67. Mr Kan submitted a jury properly directed with this evidence could say that there was nothing wrong or illegal about this contract to which the defendant was a party to and therefore as there was no predicate offence the defendant was not dealing with the proceeds of an indictable offence.  The court would therefore be entitled to rely on the cargo receipt as evidence of goods being received.

68. On the evidence before me, the cargo receipt did not support or evidence the fact that any goods were received.  Contrarily the cargo receipt in this case evidences nothing more than the receipt of the invoice from the defendant (Joint Glory).

69. PW2 and PW3’s unchallenged and unequivocal evidence was that the cargo receipt was not issued on receipt of goods.  PW1 to PW3 had not seen the cargo referred to in this letter of credit application or the cargo receipt. 

70. The cargo receipt was issued because of a practice that PW2 followed.  It was PW2’s practice on behalf of Hechter to issue the cargo receipt upon receiving the invoice from the supplier (in this case Joint Glory).  The cargo receipt was issued in accordance with the invoice. 

71. PW2 and PW3 were the two persons who signed on the cargo receipt on behalf of Hechter.  They were not the persons responsible for collecting the goods.  It was the shipping department who was responsible for collecting goods. 

72. Any prima facie evidence of a contract or goods received that might be raised by the cargo receipt is further rebutted by Joint Glory’s ledger accounts.  The ledger includes no account for Hechter or any other buyer of the goods.  It includes no account for any supplier of the goods. 

73. Did the defendant believe that there were actual goods underlying this contract because of the cargo receipt

The defendant must have relied on the cargo receipt to believe that there was a genuine sale of goods. However the defendant had never seen the cargo receipt (See VRI at counters 391 – 400 the defendant had no knowledge of the cargo receipt.) He therefore could not have and did not rely on the cargo receipt to believe there was a genuine sale of goods or that goods were received.

74. I therefore cannot place any weight or consideration to the fact that defendant relied on the cargo receipt to support his belief that there were goods delivered under this contract. 

75. Was there an underlying contract for the sale of goods

On the documents there is a prima facie case that there is a contract for the sale of goods. The invoice signed by the defendant (P13), the documents related to the letter of credit by Hechter (P11 and P12) and the cargo receipt (P15) supported this. However contrary to these documents is the evidence produced by the defendant under the production order issued by the late Mackintosh J in relation to Joint Glory and its accounts. The ledger shows no contract of sale.

76. The glaring and obvious factors that there was no contract can be seen from Joint Glory’s ledger. 

77. Joint Glory’s ledger (P10) evidences clearly there was no contract because :- 

i. It includes no account for Hechter or any other buyer of the goods,

ii. It includes no account for any supplier of the goods,

iii. The ledger records the proceeds of the letter of credit as being a debt owed to the defendant,

iv. There is no evidence of a contract made by Joint Glory with another and

v. It confirms that Joint Glory made no profit on the transaction.

78. Analysis of the defendant’s case

The defendant’s account of his role in the operations of Joint Glory was dubious and problematic. Being the boss in name only, signing blank cheques, not knowing about the company’s transactions or the purpose of withdrawing/dealing with funds in the company’s bank accounts and leaving the running of the company business to another (Tang) is highly questionable. He effectively says he turned a blind eye as to what was going on in Joint Glory and took directions and instructions from Tang because he trusted him. He knew nothing about the transaction or the business and left that all to Tang.

79. The defendant’s explanation for running Joint Glory in this manner was because he believed Tang was honest and he trusted Tang would not transgress the law or do anything unlawful. 

80. If the defendant believed Tang was honest it does not follow or make sense for the defendant to ask Tang whom he trusted “not to use the blank cheques for an unlawful manner” (VRI counter 364). Why ask a man whom you trust not to do something unlawful?

81. The defendant’s explanation that Tang was not a registered shareholder of Joint Glory because Tang has his own very large company (VRI counter 486) is unreasonable.  Owning a company does not preclude another from having a share or owning another. 

82. The tests

Firstly one asks objectively whether there are reasonable grounds for a common right thinking member of the community to believe that the proceeds were the proceeds of an indictable offence.

83. If there is, secondly, to ask whether the defendant knew or was aware of the existence of those reasonable grounds.

84. Any right thinking member of the community would ask the following questions:-

(i) If Joint Glory was set up jointly by the defendant and Tang for the purposes of trading “together” why was Joint Glory only in the name of the defendant and not together with Tang?

(ii) Why set up a solely owned company where the defendant was boss in name only?

(iii) Why set up a solely owned company or moreover an intended joint company and leave the operations solely to another (Tang)?

(iv) Why set up a solely owned company and have no idea about the operations of the company?

(v) Why as a sole owner was he not concerned with the operations of the company?

(vi) Why as sole owner blindly comply with directions from someone else in relation to the signing of documents, signing of blank cheques and withdrawal of money and not ask any questions?

(vii) Why if the defendant trusted Tang was Tang not an authorised signatory of Joint Glory’s bank account?

(viii) Why if, as the defendant had said, he had authorised Tin to operate Joint Glory’s bank account was she not an authorised signatory at the bank? Why then did he have to leave blank cheques for Tang?

(ix) Why if the defendant had an agreement with Tang to be paid 1-2 % commission if Tang brought in business, was the defendant not paid for the business Tang brought in?

(x) Why did Joint Glory despite doing a HK$2.3 million sale not make a profit from this transaction?

(xi) If as the defendant said, he considered Tang as a consultant to Joint Glory why was there no document evidencing that claim?

(xii) Why if the company was set up jointly did the defendant not have to work for Joint Glory, why was he not paid wages or commission?

(xiii) Why was Tang solely responsible for all Joint Glory’s expenses?

(xiv) Why did the defendant not make the initial deposit of $1,000.00?

(xv) Why did the initial deposit come from Felix, who was unconnected with Joint Glory?

(xvi) Joint Glory had no money to fund the transaction, therefore where did the source of the funds for the goods come from?

(xvii) Why were almost all the funds transferred to Fortune Grand or Full Interest when Joint Glory had no business with those companies?

(xviii)Why use Joint Glory and not use one of Tang’s own company for this transaction particularly if the money was eventually to be deposited in one of Tang’s company’s?

85. As respects Joint Glory’s bank accounts there are typical features of a bank account being used to launder money.  There are as follows :

(i) The company was set up about one month before the opening of the bank account in 5 February 2009,

(ii) A week later an initial small deposit of $1,000 was paid into the account not by the defendant or Tang but Felix, a person who had nothing to do with Joint Glory,

(iii) This initial deposit was not even a deposit from the trading or connection with business,

(iv) Less than a month later on 4 March, there was a significantly large deposit of about HK$2.3 million into the account (from an alleged business transaction),

(v) There was a quick withdrawal of the majority of funds deposited the following day,

(vi) Almost all of the finds deposited were withdrawn (about HK$2.25 million),

(vii) Instead of the funds being kept in the account as profits they were immediately withdrawn,

(viii) Approximately two weeks later the balance of the funds ($45,000 cash) was withdrawn leaving the account overdrawn.

(ix) The HK$2.3 million was a large amount compared to the initial deposit of $1,000.00,

(x) Money moved in a short time to return to its source (known as U turn transactions) from Tang’s interest in Hechter to Tang’s interest in Fortune Grand and Full Interest.

86. I was satisfied a common right thinking member of the community would on the above factors and asking the above questions come to the conclusion that the proceeds were proceeds of an indictable offence.  The underlying contract was a sham, the proceeds of the letter of credit was a disguise and was to conceal the proceeds of an indictable offence. 

87. The defendant’s background 

The defendant had completed secondary school. He is a merchandising manager. He had been working for the same company for some 8 years prior to 13 May 2010 (the date of the VRI). He had experience in the textile and garment manufacturing business for at least 20 years. He had set up Joint Glory for the purposes of Tang and him trading in goods together for profit or his commission.

88. Did the defendant know or have reasonable grounds to believe that the proceeds were proceeds of an indictable offence?

The defendant had extensive experience in the textile and garment field and business, he was well aware that the whole set up and operation of the business was out of the ordinary. The defendant did not disagree that the set up of the company in this manner was “strange” (VRI counter 491 and 492).

89. I was not satisfied that the defendant knew that the proceeds were proceeds of an indictable offence.  I was not satisfied that he knew there was no underlying contract and that the letter of credit was a sham to disguise or conceal funds which were the proceeds of an indictable offence.  I was satisfied however that he was turning a wilful blind eye to the operations in Joint Glory.  

90. The defendant acknowledged that the sum of $2.3 million was quite a large sum and he did not know the source of the funds. 

91. The ledger account was an obvious tell tale sign that there was no transaction for the sale of cotton knitted fabric to Hechter.  Quite extraordinarily the amount of $2.3 million was recorded as a debt to the defendant.  No debt was owed to him.  The record of a debt owed should have alerted the defendant to the fact that something was amiss.

92. The defendant’s claim that he trusted Tang is of no justification in light of the questions that were not asked and on the facts of this case.  The defendant permitted blindly for Tang to use Joint Glory as if it was his own. The eventual operation and outcome of Joint Glory was contrary to the defendant and Tang’s intention at inception.

93. The defendant asked no questions when questions would in innocent circumstances be asked.  The defendant turned a blind eye to the operations, the actions and conduct of Tang in Joint Glory. 

94. By reason of the defendant not asking the pertinent questions that a common-sense, right thinking member of the community would consider is indicative that he was turning a deliberate blind eye to the highly illicit arrangement being asked of him. 

95. The setting up of Joint Glory is no different from a person opening up a bank account in his name and letting another use it without any or much knowledge of the deposits and withdrawals.  Joint Glory was set up it for the sole use of Tang.  The defendant allowed Tang to use Joint Glory and Joint Glory’s bank accounts without any question. 

96. Saunders J said in the case of Wong Chor Wo & Anr CACC314 of 2006 at para. 108 : -

“In the normal course of events, if a man allows another person to use his bank accounts to deposit and withdraw funds, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the inevitable inference will arise that the holder of the bank account has reasonable grounds to believe that the funds passing through the account represent the proceeds of an indictable offence.”

97. Applying common sense to these facts, objectively, there were reasonable grounds for a belief that these funds were tainted by criminality and I was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there was an irresistible inference for all the reasons stated above that the defendant was aware of those grounds. 

98. I was satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant as sole owner and director of Joint Glory, a person of good character, had reasonable grounds to believe that the funds that passed through the account represent the proceeds of an indictable offence. 

99. Conclusion

I was satisfied on all the evidence before me that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of the charge.