HKSAR v. GURUNG PRABIN

DCCC 838/2025

[2026] HKDC 1287

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 838 OF 2025

————————

————————

————————————————

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

————————————————

1.  The Defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of money laundering.

Particulars of the charge

2.  Between the 12^th day of April, 2022 and the 7^th day of October, 2022, in Hong Kong, the Defendant, together with a person unknown, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely a total sum of $4,130,678.79 Hong Kong currency in the bank account with the Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong) Limited, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represent any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

Summary of facts

3.  Between April 2022 and May 2022, PW1 was scammed by online investment fraudsters.

4.  PW1 following instructions and depositing funds into five different bank accounts between 20 April 2022 and 21 April 2022.

5.  Specifically, on 21st April, 2022 transferred US$1,200 (approximate HK$94,055) to the Defendant’s USD account with the Standard Chartered Bank.

6.  PW1 sustained a loss of $186,056.

7.  The Defendant opened the account on 12 April, 2022 with multi-currency sub - accounts. The Standard Chartered Bank closed the account on 7 Oct, 2022.

Fund flow

8.  The relevant bank records of the account revealed that between 12 April 2022 and 7 October 2022:

(i) HK$ 4,130,678.79,

    CA$ 93,973.69,

    US$ 374,839.58,

    EUR 33,090.40 and

    AUD$ 44,955.66

(totalling around HK$8,1391,879.45) were deposited into the account by way of 61 deposits.

(ii) HK$4,130678.79,

     CA$ 93,970.00,

     US$ 374,839.00,

     EUR 33,090.00 and

     AU$ 44,955.00

(totalling around HK$8,139,744.80) were withdrawn from the account by way of 47 transactions.

9.  The Defendant was arrested on 9 November, 2024. The Defendant said under caution that :-

(a) he came to Hong Kong in 2011 and had since been unemployed in 2017. He relied on a monthly CSSA payment of $3,085 for living.

(b) He was approached by an unknow male who offered him $1,500 for each account he opened and to sell them to the male. Between 2021 and 2022, he opened and sold four bank accounts.

(c) After opening the bank accounts, the Defedant handed the bank cards to the unknown persons to receive his payment and they said to him that the cards would be returned to him after use.

Investigation of the account

10.  On multiple occasions, Australian, Canadian, European, and US currencies were deposited into the foreign currency sub-accounts, they were subsequently converted into Hong Kong dollars and deposited into the HKD account within the same day. The fund would then be withdrawn from the HKD account.  The account was apprantly used as a temporary repository of funds.

Criminal record

11.  The Defendant has a clear record.

Background of the defendant

12.  The Defendant is 32 years old, his mother passed away and his father remarried. He has a poor relationship with this stepmother.  He came to Hong Kong in 2011 and has been unemployed since 2017. He survived on lunchboxes from Mercy Hong Kong (a NGO).

13.  At the time of committing the present offence, he was a street sleeper.

14.  He’s a religious person and has a letter from Father Wotherspoon.

15.  The antecedent statement also stated that the Defendant had a habit of taking heroin for about 7 years.

Sentence

16.  Money laundering is a serious offence, the maximum sentence is one of 14 years’ imprisonment.

17.  As stated in Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung[1] that:

“ …… not only does it encourage criminal activities indirectly but also attempts to legitimise the process of crime. In order to crack down on serious crime and to prevent offenders from getting financial gain, it is necessary to deter the commission of money laundering offence generally, the sentence for money laundering offence should mainly reflect the amount of black money laundered , … not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others, the reason being that it is very difficult to approve the benefit concerned, and in most money laundering cases, there may not be evidence to show from what indictable offense the black money is in fact derived. ”

18.  There is no sentencing guideline for this offense. However, In both cases of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi[2] (paragraph 9 the judgement) and HKSAR v Boma[3] (paragraph 40 of the judgement), the Court of Appeal had already laid down a number of sentencing factors for consideration in the process of sentencing.

19.  In the present case, I am only sentencing the Defendant of this particular account, not the other accounts which were not subject of the present charge.  The Defendant stated that he was approached by an unknown person to open an account for a reward of $1500.  As a street sleeper, relying on NGO support, the $1500 was a very attractive sum to him.  Basically he sold his freedom for a small price of $1,500.  He committed the offence without knowing the predicate offence.

20.  The role of the Defendant was to open the account and to sell it for a reward of $1,500. His role was equally important, without his participation in opening the account, the unknown person or the syndicate behind it, their scheme to launder black money and to receive the scammed money would not have been successful or at least difficult to receive the black money.

21.  In the case of Hsu Yu Yi, the Court proposed sentences for the amount of black money involved as follows: -

(i) 1 to 2 million - 3 years or so

(ii) 3 to 6 million - 4 years or so

22.  In the present case, the account was opened on 12 April, 2022 and the offence period was from 12 April 2022 to 7 October, 2022, it covered a period of about 6 months which involved a sum of about $4.13 million, a total of 61 deposits and 47 withdrawals (99.98%) were wire deposits or transfers made from outside Hong Kong into the account which had been used as a temporary repository of funds.

23.  The defence agreed the foreign currencies deposited amount to an international element as the Defendant had already sold the account to the other party.

24.  In last occasion, the defence said that it should attract a starting point of 3.5 years.  I disagree.  In the recent authority of HKSAR v 洪良[4], the Court of Appeal upheld the starting point of 4 years for a money laundering charge of 4 million.  The appellant came to Hong Kong from China to commit the present offence.  Given the amount was 4.13 million, together with multiple foreign currencies (international element).  The proper starting point should be 4 years. Given 1/3 discount, it comes down to 32 months.

Enhancement of sentence - S. 27 (2) OSCO CAp 455

25.  The Prosecution applied under section 27(2) of Organized and Serious Crime Ordinance, Cap 455, on the ground that this specific offence was prevalent and the nature and extent of the harm that has caused to the community.

26.  The Prosecution provided 2 statements from Chief Inspector Li dated 27 March 2026 and 22 June 2026 to support the present application.

27.  The defence has no objection to this application.

28.  The defence tried very hard to persuade me to adopt 20% enhancement rate and quoted 2 recent District Court sentencing cases for consideration :-

(i) HKSAR v Wu Jing[5] which involved USD250,000 (about HK$ 1.9 million) and HKD2,100, the sentencing judge adopted a starting point of 2 years 9 months and enhanced the sentence by 20%.

(ii) HKSAR v Chau Hiu Kant[6]

The total amount being laundered was about HKD2.8 million , the enhancement rate was 20%.

29.  The defence accepts that the District Court decisions has no binding effect upon me.

30.  According to HKSAR v Wong Fung Ming and Another[7] that in determining the enhancement, the Court has to regard to whether the nature of offence is prevalent at the time of sentence in order to deter others from committing similar offences.  As such, the purpose of imposing an enhanced sentence is to serve a deterrent effect on others and to send a strong message to the public.

31.  Otherwise, the masterminds behind the scenes will continue to recruit others to open bank accounts to launder black money.

32.  In last occasion, the defence also said that the data in the first statement is showing a decreasing trend.  However, according to the judgement of HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing[8] paragraph 16 said that: -

“ under S.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.

whilst the number of street deception cases might have decreased since its peak in 2002, it was still widespread and was still commonly being practiced in 2005.”

33.  As such, it is not just looking at the figures whether it was going up or coming down, the determining factor is whether the present offence is still prevalent.

34.  According to the latest data of 22 June 2026 presented by Chief Inspector Li, I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the present offence remains prevalent.  I accept the Prosecution’s application.

35.  To this end, I consider that the appropriate enhancement rate of 1/3 is appropriate.

36.  The sentence of 32 months enhances by 1/3 is 10.6 months, I round down to 10 months.

37.  As we just discussed during mitigation, the Defendant is not entitled to any further deduction of sentence as stated in the Father Wotherspoon’s letter. 

38.  The Defendant is ordered to serve a sentence of 42 (32 + 10) months imprisonment.

[1] [2021] 1 HKLRD 201

[2] [2010] 5 HKLRD 545

[3] [2012] 2 HKLRD 33

[4] CACC 445/2025

[5] DCCC 495/2025

[6] DCCC 558/2024

[7] CACC 515/2001

[8] CACC 464/2005