HKSAR v. Luo Yinbin

DCCC 1532/2024

[2025] HKDC 1645

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1532 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of dealing with properties known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1)  and (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455.

(a)  Charge 1: (the bank account with Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong)  Limited)

(i)  the offence date was between the 25^th day of February 2023 and the 24^th day of October 2023 (both dates inclusive)[1];

(ii)  the total sums of $139,967.46 United States currency and $1,146,252.20 Hong Kong currency.

(b)  Charge 2: (the bank account with Hang Seng Bank Limited)

(i)  the offence date was between 11^th day of September 2023 and the 30^th day of October 2023 (both dates inclusive)[2];

(ii)  the total sums of $398,152.80 in United States currency and $530,190.00 Hong Kong currency.

Summary of facts

2.The charge 1 account was opened on 25 February 2023.

3.The charge 2 account was opened on 11 September 2023.

4.The Defendant was the account holders. On each occasion it was a one day trip to Hong Kong.  Between April and October 2023, 5 victims fell prey to “pretend official” scam and investment fraud. They deposited funds into various bank accounts.

(i)  HK$941,600 into the bank account with Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong)  Limited;

(ii)  HK$100,000 into the bank account with Hang Seng Bank Limited.

5.These victims realized that they were deceived and reported the matter to the police.

6.The Defendant was arrested in May 2024 and September 2024 respectively for the 2 charges.

7.Under caution, the Defendant said that he sold the Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong)  Limited bank account to “Ah Quan” for $2,000.

8.In a subsequent record of interview, the Defendant said that:-

(a)  He was unemployed in February 2023 and he lived alone in Shenzhen.

(b)  He has a friend that told him he could earn quick money by opening bank accounts in Hong Kong, after the accounts were opened, they would be cancelled as the bank staff had to meet the business quota.

(c)  After the two accounts were opened, he passed on the password, cards and all the bank details and credentials to his friend. His friend told him he was not required to do anything after the account was opened.

(d)  For the purpose of opening the account, the Defendant also subscribed a mobile phone number on the instruction of his friend.

(e)  He was rewarded $2,000 by his friend who told him it was a share of the commission that the bank staff had earned after meeting the account opening quota.

Mitigation

9.The Defendant has a clear record. He is 32 years of aged, single. His father and sister passed away in 2017 and 2024 (while he was in custody since May 2024)  respectively, his mother comes to Hong Kong to visit the defendant regularly. She is also in Court today to support him.

10.As he was unemployed in February 2023, his friend told him he could earn quick money by opening bank accounts. The defendant received a total of $4,000 to come to Hong Kong to open two accounts.

11.The Defendant in his letter told me that he is very regretful for committing the present offences especially he lost his sister during this period of remand in custody.

12.The defence also quoted 2 District Court cases for reference:-

(a)  HKSAR v Mo Ka Wing[3]- HK$3.7 million

(i)  27 months starting point and enhanced the sentence by 1/3 according to S.27 (2)  of OSCO[4] application.

(b)  HKSAR v 王劲松[5]- HK$21.4 million

(i)  5 years starting point reduced by 1/3 to 40 months and further reduced 3 months for clear record at the end, it was 37 months’ imprisonment term. Further enhanced the sentence according to S.27 (2)  Of OSCO application by 20%.

Sentence

13.The present offence carries a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.

14.In the case of Secretary of Justice v Sin Yun Yee[6] that an immediate custodial sentence is required even for a first time offender.

15.The defence accepted that there was no sentencing guideline for this offence, but quoted the judgement of HKSAR v Hsu Yu YI[7] and HKSAR v Boma[8] that there are a number of sentencing factors to be considered.

16.With this information in mind, I now proceed to consider the sentencing factors in the present case: -

(a)  the defence and the prosecution agreed the conversion of USD as follows: -

i. charge 1 - from US$139,967.46 = HK$1,084,747

ii. charge 2 - from US$398,152.8 = HK$3,085,684

(b)  in charge 1, it covered a period of 8 months and the total amount involved was about 2.2 million Hong Kong currency.

(c)  in charge 2, it covered a period of 1.5 months and the total amount involved was about 3.6 million Hong Kong currency.

(d)  The total amount for the 2 charges was about HK$5.8 million.

(e)  there were USD currency in both accounts, the defence and the prosecution agreed that there was no indication of an international element.

(f)  However, the Defendant, being a Mainlander, purposely came to Hong Kong twice to open the two accounts from two different banks. That was a cross boarder element, as such, the sentence should be enhanced accordingly by 3 months for each charge.

(g)  The Defendant received $4,000 as rewards in total.

(h)  The nature of the predicate offence was those of the “pretend official” scam and investment fraud. However, there was no evidence either from the summary of facts or in mitigation that the Defendant had any knowledge about the predicate offence.

(i)  There was no evidence to suggest that the offence was committed on behalf of an organised criminal syndicate.

17.In Secretary of Justice v Wan Kwok Keung[9], Yeung JA (as he then was)  stated that: -

“the 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.”

18.In the present case, the total amount being laundered for both charges was about HK$5.8 million.

19.As such, I consider that the starting point for each charge as follows :-

(a)  Charge 1 - the starting point is 2 years and enhance by 3 months (total is 27 months), after 1/3 discount, it becomes 18 months.

(b)  Charge 2 - the starting point is 2 years 9 months enhance by 3 months (total is 36 month), after 1/3 discount, it becomes 2 years.

Enhancement

20.The defence has no objection as to the application by the prosecution[10] and also accepted that this type of offence is still prevalent and caused harm to the community.

21.According to HKSAR v Wong Fung Ming[11] that in determining the enhancement, the court has to regard to whether the nature of the offence is still prevalent at the time of sentence in order to deter others from committing the similar offence.

22.The prosecution submitted Chief Inspector Li’s statement to support its application.

23.Table A of the statement showed that the total number of stooges arrested during the period of January to July 2025 reaches at 71.46% as compared to the whole year of 2024 at 75.10%.

24.I am satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that this type of offence is still prevalent at the time of sentence.

25.As such, I take 1/3 as the enhancement rate[12].

26.The formular of the sentence is as follow :-

	Starting point	Aggravating factor	After 1/3 Discount	1/3 Enhancement rate	Total
Charge 1	2y3m	3m	20m	6.6m	26.6m (20+6.6m) (round down to 26m)
Charge 2	3y	3m	26m	8.6m	34.6m (26+8.6m) (round down to 34m)

Totality

27.I ordered 10 months from charge 1 to run consecutively to charge 2 that arrives at 44 months[13].

28.I further reduce 2 months in view of the demise of the Defendant’s sister while he was in custody. The final sentence arrives at 42 months’ imprisonment.