HKSAR v. Tse Chi Lung

DCCC 1324/2024

[2025] HKDC 1807

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1324 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Money laundering". In short, he lent his bank account to someone.

Summary of Facts

2.On 15 October 2020, the defendant opened an integrated bank account (No.661-430272-833)  with HSBC (the "Account").  He was its sole signatory.  In the opening mandate, he claimed to be a police officer earning HK$30,000 to HK$39,000 per month.

Deception

3.In late October 2020, an 82-year-old man ("the Victim")  was deceived in an investment fraud.  Between 28 October and 15 December 2020, he deposited a total sum of HK$7,530,310 into 9 bank accounts.  Of those deposits made by the Victim, a sum of US$100,000 was made (by transfer)  to the Account on 4 November 2020; and another sum of US$100,000 on 12 November 2020.

4.Upon receiving each sum of US$100,000, the same amount was immediately transferred to the HKD savings sub-account of the Account (in the sums of HK$810,955.64 and HK$780,848.34 respectively).  The 2 sums in Hong Kong currency were then either transferred out of the Account or withdrawn in cash.

Deposits and withdrawals

5.Between 23 October and 30 November 2020, the Account received an aggregated sum of HK$6,966,955.67 in deposits.  Simultaneously, withdrawals from the Account amounted to an aggregated sum of HK$6,966,955.78.  The closing balance on 13 November 2020 was HK$0.11.  Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals, the Police found a "mirror pattern" in those transactions, which is a typical indicator of money laundering.

Arrest

6.The defendant was arrested on 11 February 2022.  In his video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he has been a cleaner since September 2021, earning HK$11,000 per month.  He admitted the Account belonging to him, but alleged having lost his bank card in 2021.  He did not report his loss.

7.The defendant's income and tax records are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by the Account.

8.The defendant now admits that during the offence period, he, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the total sum of HK$6,966,955.78 withdrawn from the Account, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with the said sum.

Mitigation & Sentence

9.The defendant is 49 and has 2 conviction records, none related to "money laundering". Defence counsel Ms. Yap informed me that the defendant is married with a daughter (aged 10). He has worked as a cleaner for over 10 years. The defendant was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder and depression in 2016. In mitigation, Ms. Yap submitted that without realizing the seriousness of his act, the defendant accepted $1,000 as a reward for opening the Account. He is truly remorseful.

10.The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant to section 27(2)(c)  and (d)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap.455)  on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm caused to the community. Ms. Yap did not object.

11.I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was)  held "Under section 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[1]."

12.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 22 September 2025. I am satisfied that in 2020, deception-related money laundering cases were prevalent in Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the total value of monetary loss.

13.There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money laundering using bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" is still widespread and commonly being practised in Hong Kong today. What true criminals need are gullible scapegoats like the defendant in the present case who would take the blame for them when the law enforcement takes action. The court must send a clear message to the general public that people who play the role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a deterrent effect. When there are fewer or no willing "ML Stooges", the criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts would fail.

14.This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge bank account. The defendant claimed complete ignorance of the investment scam against the Victim; however, such a scam would have been meaningless without his bank account. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given his role, the total sum which went through the Account and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

15.The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 held :-

Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward.[2]

16.In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have also borne in mind the amount of money involved, the duration of the offence, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as his personal circumstances.

17.In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P held :-

Generally speaking, the sentence passed in a "money laundering" case is primarily to reflect the amount of the "illicit/black money" involved. Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money"was actually not derived from an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…[3]

18.I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i)  except the 2 sums of US$100,000 from the Victim, the funds received by the Account were related to any predicate offence; and (ii)  the defendant was involved in or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of the Account, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

19.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that a total sum of HK$6.96 million odd went through the Account within a period of 1 month. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through the Account, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s)  of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

20.I consider a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment appropriate and just[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 32 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment.