HKSAR v. Lam Hing Kai

DCCC 306/2024

[2025] HKDC 74

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 306 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.There are 2 defendants in this case. The present proceeding only concerns D1.

2.D1 pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy with “黃又言” and another person known as “Ah Ghost” for money laundering in a sum of $4,894,816.01 between an unknown day in October 2021 and 22 October 2021.

Predicate offence - investment fraud

3.Between an unknown day in October and 22 October 2021, PW1 was a victim of an online romance cum investment scam.  PW1 was lured to invest in cryptocurrency on an online platform with promising return.

4.PW1 was deceived to transfer a total of HK$4,488,000 into 13 different accounts provided by the unknown swindler, of which including the remittance of HK$78,000 into the D’s account on 18 October 2021.

5.PW1 made a report to the police when she failed to withdraw money from the platform and the swindler became out of reach.

The account

6.The Defendant opened the account in July 2012.

7.Between 15 to 21 October 2021, the account recorded:-

(a)  165 deposits of $4,894,816.01 (including the $78,000 deposit );

(b)  163 withdrawals of $4,894,785.30 with mirror pattern observed; and

(c)  most of the funds would be transferred out on the same day.

8.On 13 June 2022, the Defendant was arrested at his home.  

9.From his Facebook account, the Police found that he had agreed to surrender his BOC account to “黃又言” for monetary reward.  On 14 October 2021, “黃又言”instructed the Defendant to “start working” on the next day.

10.Under caution, the Defendant said that:-

(a)  He was indebted due to gambling.

(b)  He wanted to earn quick money.

(c)  “黃又言” offered $10,000 per day to him to sleep in a hotel for 10 days on condition that the Defendant to provide his bank accounts to him.

(d)  In October 2021, the Defendant met up with “Ah Ghost”, an associate of “黃又言” at a hotel. The Defendant surrendered his ID card, mobile phone, ATM card and password of the BOC account to “Ah Ghost”.

(e)  On the 4^th day, the Defendant had an argument with one of the associates and he left the hotel after retrieving his ID card, mobile phone and ATM card.

(f)  He received HK$5,000 as reward several days later.

Criminal record

11.The Defendant had 2 counts of records:-

(a)  2005 - managing a vice establishment

(b)  2010 - robbery

Background

12.The Defendant is now 46 years old.  His last job was a transportation worker earning between HK$16,000 to HK$18,000 per month.  He contributed HK$10,000 to his parents for living allowance.

13.He divorced in 2023.

14.The Defendant’s father is 75 years old and his mother is 71 years old with a heart medical condition, which requires a major operation in September 2025.  They both required the Defendant to look after them.

15.He committed the present offence due to his gambling habit.  His reward was HK$5,000.

16.The Defendant showed his remorse by revoking his own bail in August 2024.

17.D1 had never met D2 until the commencement of the present proceedings.  He is now regretful and asked for leniency.

18.He has been troubled by this matter for 2.5 years and that give him mental anxiety.

Sentence

19.The present offence carries a maximum imprisonment term of 14 years on indictment.

20.There is no sentencing guideline for the nature of this offence as said in the case of Boma[2012] 2 HKLRD 33, that given the highly variable circumstances in which the offence might be committed, it was difficult and undesirable to offer guidelines.  However, the Court of Appeal provided a non-exhaustive list of relevant sentencing factors for consideration.

21.In the judgement of Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court stressed that it was fact-specific nature of the offence regarding sentence.  However, it also pointed out that it was the amount of the money involved, rather than the amount of benefit received by a Defendant, is the major sentencing consideration.

22.Further, in the same judgement, the court also said that it was “the culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, support and encouragement offered to the commission of an indictable offence.  So, a Defendant’s level of participation and the number of occasions on which he is involved in the money laundering activities are relevant factors to be considered.”

23.In the present case :-

(a)  The Defendant committed the present offence due to his gambling debts.

(b)  He sold his bank account details to 2 persons (as stated in the charge)  for a reward of HK$10,000 per day. He stayed in the hotel for 4 days.

(c)  During his stay in the hotel, he surrendered all his personal belongings such as ID card, mobile phone, ATM card and password of his account.

(d)  The purpose of keeping him in the hotel was to prevent the Defendant to have contact with others and to go to the Bank to collect any funds being transferred into his bank account.

(e)  The predicate offence was on-line fraud; however, there is no direct evidence to show that the Defendant was aware of the predicate offence. Be that as it may, this is not a mitigating factor. (HKSAR v Cen Huakuo CACC 21/2014)

(f)  He left due to argument with one of associates.

(g)  That means there were at least 5 persons in the scheme. ie “黃又言”, “Ah Ghost” and three associates who took turn to keep him in the room.

(h)  He obtained HK$5,000 as a reward for his assistance to this syndicate for money laundering.

(i)  Without his participation in this scheme, the syndicate would not be able to collect HK$4.9 million from his account.

(j)  The total period is about 6 days.

(k)  There is no evidence to suggest any international element.

24.As said in many cases, money-laundering offence is a serious offence and must be deterred.

25.In the case of HKSAR v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201.  The court said that:-

“15. … The sentencing starting point is 3 years or so where the ‘black money” involved is between $1 million and $2 million; 4 years or so where it is between $3 million and $6 million; and could be over 5 years where it is above 10 million.”

26.In the present case, the amount was HK$4.9 million over a period of about 6 days.  With all the above factors in mind, I take 4 years as the starting point, reduce to 32 months after ¹/₃ discount.

Enhancement rate

27.The Defendant has no objection to the Prosecution’s application to enhance the sentence pursuant to s.27(2)  of Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.  In support of this application, there is a statement from Chief Inspector Li date 25 November 2024 to inform this Court of the rising rate of money laundering.

28.Whether enhancement of sentence should be adopted was to view at the time of sentence.  That was whether the nature of offence was prevalent at the time of sentence as stated in HKSAR v Chung Chi King CACC 504/2001.  The purpose is to deter the others from committing similar offences.

29.As to the level of enhancement rate, the Defence is aware of the authority of HKSAR v Hung Wing Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 167.  As such, I consider that ¹/₃ enhancement rate is appropriate to reflect the prevalence of this specified offence.

30.The formula of the sentence is as follows:-

(a)  The sentence after ¹/₃ discount is 32 months.

(b)  Enhance by ¹/₃, that is 32 x ¹/₃ = 10.6 months, I round down to 10 months.

(c)  The total sentence is 32 + 10 = 42 months.

31.I also reduce 2 months for his mental anxiety as a result of 2 ½ years of waiting for the outcome of this sentence. The final sentence is 40 months imprisonment (42 – 2 months).

32.The Defendant is order to serve a period of 40 months’ imprisonment.