HKSAR v. Wu Kwok Chu

DCCC 279 & 1450/2024 (Consolidated)

[2025] HKDC 1951

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 279 & 1450 OF 2024

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Money laundering". In short, he lent his 2 bank accounts to someone.

Summary of Facts

2.On 20 May 2022, the defendant opened a bank account (No.015-529-88-20334-7) with The Bank of East Asia ("Account 1").  He was the sole signatory of the account.

3.On 23 May 2022, the defendant opened a bank account (No.210-637351-888) with Hang Seng Bank ("Account 2").  He was the sole signatory of the account.

Deception

4.Between May and June 2022, Mr. Shang (PW1) and Madam Leung (PW2) were deceived by an online investment scam.  They were lured into making payments to various bank accounts for fake investments.  Afterwards, the fraudsters became out of touch.  PW1 and PW2 did not receive any profits and were unable to withdraw their money.

5.PW1 suffered loss in an aggregated sum of US$3,007,157.03, of which a total sum of US$282,868.87 was deposited into Account 1 by way of 6 transfers.

6.PW2 suffered loss in a total sum of HK$1,307,010, of which a sum of HK$100,000 was deposited into Account 2.

Money laundering

Charge 1

7.Account 1 consisted of a HKD savings account, a HKD current account, a USD sub-account and a CAD sub-account.

8.Between 20 May and 11 July 2022, the HKD savings account received 96 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of HK$4,942,767.99.  A total sum of HK$4,942,766.20 was withdrawn by 109 transactions.  After eliminating the cross transfers between the accounts within Account 1 (to avoid double-counting), the HKD current account received a net deposit in the sum of HK$10,100.  Similarly, the USD sub-account received a net deposit in the sum of US$636,281.23.

9.Account 1 was closed by the bank on 22 October 2022.

Charge 2

10.Account 2 consisted of a HKD account, a USD account, a EUR account and a GBP account.

11.Between 23 May and 6 June 2022, the HKD account received 28 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of HK$2,010,578.15 (including the HK$100,000 from PW2).  A total sum of HK$2,009,827 was withdrawn by 27 transactions.  After eliminating the cross transfers between the accounts within Account 2 (to avoid double-counting), the HKD account received a net deposit in the sum of HK$1,097,857.83.  Similarly, the USD account received a net deposit in the sum of US$112,409.52.  Likewise, the EUR account received a net deposit in the sum of EUR 4,000; and the GBP account, GBP 1,000.

12.Account 2 was closed by the bank on 13 October 2022.

Arrest

13.The defendant was arrested on 20 January and 2 May 2023 respectively in relation to Accounts 2 and 1.

14.In his video recorded interviews, the defendant admitted having opened Account 1.  He claimed to be a cleaner, earning around HK$15,000 per month.

15.The defendant's income and tax records are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by Accounts 1 and 2.

Mitigation & Sentence

16.The defendant is 50 and divorced with no children. He has 11 conviction records, none related to "money laundering". Defence counsel Mr. Ma informed me that the defendant resides with his parents (both aged 75) and made financial contributions to them each month.

17.In mitigation, Mr. Ma submitted that owing to sciatica, the defendant was unable to work in March 2022. In April 2022, he responded to a post on Facebook and learned that he could earn some quick money by opening bank accounts and letting others use them. Knowing that someone might use his bank accounts for illegal purposes, the defendant nonetheless took up the offer since he was in need of money. He opened Accounts 1 and 2, and lent them to someone in return for $8,000.

18.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. Mr. Ma did not object.

19.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]."

20.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 30 October 2025. I am satisfied that in 2022, 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.

21.There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money laundering through bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" remains widespread 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 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 few or no willing "ML Stooges", criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts will fail.

22.This is a typical case of money laundering by way of stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the investment fraud against PW1 and PW2, such scams would have been meaningless without his bank accounts. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given his role, the total sums which went through his 2 accounts and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

23.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]

24.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 amounts of money involved, the duration of the offences, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as his personal circumstances.

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

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]

Charge 1

26.I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i) except the total sum of US$282,868.87from PW1, the funds received by Account 1 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 Account 1, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

27.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of about HK$9.9 million[4] went through Account 1 within a period of slightly over 7 weeks. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through Account 1, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

28.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 4.5 years' imprisonment[5]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 36 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 45 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

29.Only PW2's HK$100,000 were related to a predicate offence. An aggregated sum of about HK$2 million[6] went through Account 2 within

a period of slightly over 2 weeks. Hence, I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment[7]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 24 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 30 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

30.The grand total received by Accounts 1 and 2 was HK$11.9 million odd. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 40 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 50 months. To achieve this, I order 5 months in Charge 2 to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1.