HKSAR v. Hui Miu Miu

DCCC 267/2025

[2025] HKDC 2096

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 267 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

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

Summary of Facts

2.On 26 November 2021, the defendant opened a bank account (No.454-353525-833)  with HSBC (the "Account").  She was its sole signatory.  In the opening mandate, the defendant claimed to be a clerk, earning $180,000 per year and residing in a public housing unit.

Deception

3.During the offence period, Madam Li (PW1)  was deceived in a typical "Pretending to be mainland official" telephone scam.  One of the two callers, who pretended to be a mainland police officer, asked PW1 to disclose to him all her bank accounts and passwords for investigation.  As a result, funds in her bank account(s)  were transferred to other bank accounts including the Account.  In particular, a total sum of $2.61 million was transferred to the Account by PW1.  PW1 reported the matter to the Police.

Deposits and withdrawals

4.Between 26 November 2021 and 26 May 2022, the Account received 28 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $2,611,310 (including the $2.61 million from PW1).  Within the same period, 29 withdrawals were made, which aggregated to a sum of $2,611,210.  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

5.The defendant was arrested on 17 January 2023.  In her video recorded interview, she admitted having opened the Account.  She lent it to her friend Wong Tsz Ying. The defendant also claimed that she had reported loss of her ATM card to HSBC in mid-2022.

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

7.The defendant now admits that during the offence period, she, together with Wong Tsz Ying, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the total sum of $2,611,310 received by 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

8.The defendant is 28 and single. She has 1 conviction record, which is also a "money laundering" offence. Defence counsel Ms. Bu informed me that the defendant used to work in a financial company earning $15,000 per month. Owing to the stress at work, she switched to a part-time secretary job in 2024 earning $5,000 per month.

9.In mitigation, Ms. Bu submitted that the defendant and Miss Wong Tsz Ying have been friends since primary school. Miss Wong has helped the defendant repaying her debts. Regarding the present offence, Miss Wong asked the defendant to open a bank account for Miss Wong to deal with some money transfers. Miss Wong offered the defendant 1% of the total transaction sum as her reward. In view of their friendship, the defendant opened the Account and gave the bank card to Miss Wong without checking how the Account was used.

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. Bu 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 31 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.

13.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.

14.This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge bank account. Even if the defendant did not know about the phone deception against PW1, such a scam would have been meaningless without the Account. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given her 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 her 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 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. On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that a total sum of $2.6 million odd went through the Account within a period of 6 months (and basically all of which came from PW1).

19.By lending her 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 3 years' imprisonment appropriate and just[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 24 months. With the 25% enhancement, the sentence becomes 30 months.

21.Ms. Bu has informed me that the defendant in fact had a clear record at the time of the present offence. She and Miss Wong were involved in another similar offence in ESCC 369/2024, for which the defendant was sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment in May 2024. The defendant has finished serving her sentence in ESCC 369/2024 and was discharged on 26 June 2025. Ms. Bu submitted that had both cases been dealt with around the same time (even by different courts), the defendant could have been benefited from the totality principle. I agree with Ms. Bu. Hence, I exercise my discretion to reduce the defendant's sentence to 26 months. This is the best I can do within my powers. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 26 months' imprisonment.

22.For the record, Ms. Mo for the prosecution informed me that the present case and ESCC 369/2024 did not arise from the same police operation; both cases involved different victims and were investigated by different teams.