HKSAR v. Cheung Tsz Ming
|
DCCC 569/2025 [2025] HKDC 1723 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 569 OF 2025 ----------------------------
----------------------------
--------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE --------------------------------------- Charge 1.Defendant was charged with one count of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. Plea 2.Defendant pleaded guilty, admitted the facts and was convicted. Summary of facts 3.The subject account of the charge was opened by the defendant on 2 May 2021 and closed on 26 May 2022. 4.Arising from some deception cases, a number of deposits, namely $10,900, $30,000, $30,000 and $100,000 was made into defendant’s account in February and March 2022 respectively. 5.In respect of defendant’s account, between November 2021 and May 2022, the total amount of the subject charge by way of 34,692 deposits and 4,165 withdrawals were made. All the transactions shown a pattern of temporary repository of frauds. Arrest 6.On 3 August 2022, the defendant was arrested but later released. The defendant was re-arrested on 5 March 2025 and was first brought to the magistrates' court in March 2025. Background of the defendant 7.He, aged 48 was single, and educated up to Form 1 level. 8.He had 37 previous convictions but not similar. Consideration 9.In sentencing, I have considered the following points:-
10.I have also considered the following authorities :-
Starting point 11.Taking into account the amount being over 15 million dollars within a period of 6 months, defendant’s background, the mitigation put forward, and the authorities mentioned, I adopted 4 ½ years’ imprisonment as the starting point. Delay in prosecution 12.I have considered the chronology of the case submitted by the prosecution. 13.For this case, only one bank account was involved. The defendant was arrested in August 2022 and was first brought up to court in March 2025. I was of the view that it constituted a case of delay in prosecution, though not a very serious one. I considered it being a factor for mitigation, resulting a further discount of 4 months. More Severe Sentence 14.Having considered section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, the facts of the case and the material supplied, I was satisfied that all the requirements under the said section had been fulfilled. I accordingly granted the application for a more severe sentence. 15.Having considered all the circumstances of the case, I allowed a more severe sentence by 25% increase. Sentence 16.I adopted the starting point of 4 ½ years’ imprisonment. On defendant’s guilty plea, it was reduced to 36 months’ imprisonment. 17.On further deduction of 4 months due to the delay in prosecution, it was one of 32 months’ imprisonment. 18.By way of 25% increase of a more severe sentence under s.27 of Cap 455, it was 8 months’ imprisonment. 19.The final sentence was one of 32 months plus 8 months, i.e. 40 months’ imprisonment. 20.The defendant was now sentenced to 40 months’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment