Read the full judgment text of FACC 17/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Final Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 December 2019 before Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Cheung PJ, Mr Justice Stock NPJ, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers NPJ.
Criminal law – money laundering – conspiracy – Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, s.25(1) – 'knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that any property … represents any person's proceeds of an indictable offence' – whether mens rea is subjective or objective – wilful blindness – Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, s.159A – statutory conspiracy – whether criminal provenance of property is a 'fact or circumstance' under s.159A(2) – email hacking fraud diverting US$539,375 deposit into bank account of newly incorporated Hong Kong shell company – appellant convicted of conspiracy to deal with property having reasonable grounds to believe it represented the proceeds of an indictable offence – whether 'reasonable grounds to believe' test in s.25(1) OSCO is satisfied where defendant asserts an honest belief that the property was not tainted – whether the test is objective or subjective – meaning of 'reasonable grounds to believe' reformulated – whether wilful blindness is relevant – whether s.159A(2) applies to the 'reasonable grounds' limb of s.25(1) – whether conspiracy can be committed under the 'reasonable grounds' limb – whether a defendant may be guilty of conspiracy even if the grounds cease to exist by the time of dealing – appeal against conviction dismissed. Sentence: 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
Legal issues: Meaning of 'having reasonable grounds to believe' in s.25(1) OSCO · Relevance of defendant's actual belief to the statutory test · Relevance of wilful blindness under s.25(1) OSCO · Whether conspiracy can lie under the 'reasonable grounds' limb of s.25(1) OSCO given s.159A(2) Crimes Ordinance · Whether conspirators are guilty even if reasonable grounds may not exist at the time of dealing
Outcome: Appeal against conviction dismissed. Conviction and sentence of 3 years and 9 months' imprisonment upheld.
Cited by 10 cases · Cites 6 cases