HKSAR v. Lam So Yi, Zoe
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 172/2022 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 24 January 2024.
1. The 2 nd defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Charge 3).
Cited by 1 case · Cites 2 cases
|
DCCC 172/2022 [2024] HKDC 166 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 172 OF 2022 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ The Charge 1.The 2nd defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of “dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Charge 3). The Facts 2.The summary of facts agreed by the 2nd defendant revealed that loan fraud was committed between February and July 2017. Victims received unsolicited phone calls offering low-interest rate loans. They attended the office of a Right Fortune Enterprise Ltd (“RFEL”) in Tsimshatsui. They were told that, they need to apply for loans from licensed money lender, and to settle a payment (alleged to be deposit, surety to improve credit rating, or application fee) before being entitled to the low-interest rate loans. 3.On 6 April 2017, a victim complied with the instruction and issued a cheque of HK$400,000 (as surety) to D2 (on behalf of RFEL). 4.D2 is the sole account holder and signatory of a Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited account (“D2's account”). Bank records revealed that on 6 April 2017, HK$500,000 and HK$400,000 were received via cheque deposit and on 11 April 2017, HK$300,000 was transferred to D3's bank account. 5.At all material times D2 dealt with the sums of money totaling HK$900,000 in D2’s account, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the said HK$900,000 wholly or in part directly or indirectly represented any person's proceeds of an indictable offence. Mitigations 6.Mr. So who appeared for the 2nd Defendant told this court that the 2nd Defendant is now 28 years of age. She was born and raised in Hong Kong. After attaining Form 5 she went to New Zealand to continue her studies. After completion of her secondary school in New Zealand, she came back to Hong Kong. 7.The 2nd Defendant is the mother of her 9-years-old son and 8-months-old daughter. The 2nd Defendant was well supported by her fiancé. 8.The defence acknowledged that the 2nd Defendant had been convicted on 10 different occasions (totaling 15 charges) in the past. The defence submitted that all of these offences were of a different nature from Charge (3) and thus urged this court to disregard them for the purpose of the present sentencing exercise. 9.Insofar as the commission of Charge (3) is concerned, Mr. So submitted that after the 2nd Defendant’s return from New Zealand, she had acquaintance with some bad companions which led to the present offence. The 2nd Defendant admitted that she did lend her bank account to one of her acquaintances. She was well aware that her bank account would not be used for a proper purpose, yet she still lent the bank account foolishly. 10.Mr. So submitted that there was no evidence to suggest that the 2nd Defendant took part in the underlying frauds nor that she knew about the underlying frauds. She played a limited role in the money laundering and the money laundering was not committed by or on behalf of an organized criminal syndicate. The defence also submitted communications between the 2nd Defendant and those giving instructions to her demonstrated that she was, to a certain extent, coerced in the course of dealing with the subject laundered monies. 11.Mr. So also addressed to this court that the 2nd Defendant was passionate and enthusiastic in volunteer work. She started participating in a volunteer organization named “Go In Love Charity Foundation Limited” (“the Charity Foundation”) in 2020 and was dedicated in different volunteer works. 12.Mitigations letters written by the 2nd Defendant, her father, the Chairman of the Charity Foundation, the employer of the 2nd Defendant and Chairman of Tai O Rural Committee were submitted. Sentence 13.There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence as the facts vary from case to case. 14.The maximum sentence on conviction upon indictment is a fine of $5,000,000 and 14 years’ imprisonment. 15.The Court of Appeal however stated in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Vi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 that insofar as the determination of the appropriate sentence was concerned, the following factors are to be taken into account:
16.Further, in Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 197, the Court of Appeal stated that “where the “black money” involved is between 1 million and 2 million dollars”, the appropriate starting point is one of 3 years. 17.In the present case, I am satisfied that the 2nd Defendant did not have a major role in the fraudulent scheme. There is no evidence to suggest that she possessed the knowledge of the predicate offence, namely fraud. The duration involved was short and the number of transaction were few. 18.I therefore adopt a starting point of 26 months’ imprisonment. 19.The 2nd Defendant is entitled to a one-third discount a result of her guilty plea. 20.For Charge (3), she is sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under DCCC 172/2022