HKSAR v. Mok Hoi Tik and Others

DCCC 1259/2023 & 638, 1518 & 1558/2024

(Consolidated)

[2026] HKDC 46

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 1259 OF 2023 AND 638, 1518 & 1558 OF 2024

--------------------------------------

---------------------------------------

-------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

-------------------------------------

1.D2 pleaded guilty to 3 charges (Charge 2, 7 and 8). D5 pleaded guilty to 1 charge (Charge 5). D6 pleaded guilty to 1 charge (Charge 6). All the charges against D2, D5 and D6 were dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indicatable offence, commonly known as money laundering.

2.In a gist, 25 victims, namely PW1 to PW25, fell prey to different scams between January and November 2022. As a result, they transferred various amount of money to the accounts of different defendants. With a total loss of around HK$23 million, around HK$5.5 million was deposited into the accounts of D2, D5 and D6 and 3 other defendants. The transaction patterns in the relevant bank accounts of the defendants all displayed hallmarks of money laundering during the offence period.

Facts of the case

D2

Charge 2

3.D2 opened an account with Bank of China (“BOC”) on 20 January 2022 and was the sole authorized signatory of the account. Between 1 and 31 March 2022, D2’s BOC account received 176 deposits, totaling more than HK$8.19 million, including HK$500,000 from PW1. During the same period, the account had 246 withdrawals, also totaling more than HK$8.19 million.

Charge 7

4.D2 opened an account with Standard Chartered Bank (“SCB”) and was the sole authorized signatory of the account. D2’s SCB account was only active between 1 and 17 March 2022. During these 17 days, the account had 50 deposits, totaling more than HK$2.5 million and 92 withdrawals, totaling more than HK$2.5 million. The account was clearly used as temporary repository of funds. The deposits were swiftly withdrawn and the day-end balance were kept low. A pattern of smurfing was also observed in the account.

Charge 8

5.D2 opened an account with The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”) and was the sole authorized signatory of the account. Between 5 and 11 March 2022, D2’s HSBC account had 19 deposits, totaling more than HK$1.3 million and 40 withdrawals, also totaling more than HK$1.3 million. Money deposited into the account was swiftly withdrawn and the day-end balance of the account was kept low. The account displayed patterns of smurfing and mirroring and appeared to be used as temporary repository of funds.

D2’s arrest and background

6.D2 was arrested by police. Under video recorded interviews, D2 confirmed that:

(1) the BOC and SCB accounts belonged to him; and

(2) he was a construction worker with a monthly salary of HK$15,000 and did not file any tax return.

7.Pursuant to the record in Inland Revenue Department (“IRD”), D2 did not file any tax return.

D5

Charge 5

8.D5 opened an account with BOC was the sole authorized signatory of the account. Between 6 and 28 February 2022, there were 56 deposits, totaling more than HK$3.8 million, including HK$400,000 from PW1. During the same period, the account had 98 withdrawals, totaling more than HK$3.8 million.

D5’s arrest and background

9.D5 was arrested on 14 March 2023. Under video recorded interview, D5 said that:

(1) the BOC account was opened by him when he was a teenager; and

(2) he was unemployed but had worked as a waiter previously making HK$8,000 to HK$10,000 monthly.

10.Pursuant to the IRD’s record, D5’s total income for the financial years of 2020/21 and 2021/22 was HK$249,786.

D6

Charge 6

11.D6 opened an account with BOC and was the sole authorized signatory of the account. Between 7 January and 10 February 2022, the account received 85 deposits, totaling more than HK$3.6 million, including a total of more than HK$1.2 million from PW2 to PW9. During the same period, the account had 126 withdrawals, totaling more than HK$3.6 million.

D6’s arrest and background

12.D6 was arrested on 22 August 2023. Under caution, he said he originally opened the account for receiving salary, but later gave the bank card and password of the account to another person.

13.A video recorded interview was conducted with D6 in which he said:

(1) he worked as a promoter with monthly salary of HK$4,000 to HK$5,000, with savings of around HK$12,000 but no other properties or assets;

(2) he acquainted a male named William, who asked him to open a new bank account for salary after he was interested in part-time jobs;

(3) later, he met a colleague introduced by William; and

(4) he then opened a bank account with BOC and passed all the bank account documents to the colleague.

Background and mitigation of D2

14.D2 is now 22 years old, single and resides with his mother and an elder brother. He received education up to Form 6. He was a part time construction worker. He is a person of clear record.

15.In mitigation, Mr Chan, counsel for D2, handed up mitigation letters by D2, his family members, relatives and friends. They all asked me to impose a lenient sentence.

16.Mr Chan urged me to consider D2 was under coercion and

submitted that in 2021, D2 was introduced by a friend to a person named “Ming”, who knew D2’s home address and threatened him to open bank accounts and to hand up ATM cards. Between 1 February 2022 and 17 March 2022, D2 was detained by the fraud syndicate, who used D2’s bank cards to deal with the black money. Mr Chan emphasized that at the material time, D2 was young. Fearing for his family’s safety, he allowed the syndicate to use his bank accounts. To protect his family’s safety, D2 chose not to report to the police even after he was released by the fraud syndicate, who had warned D2 not to do so. For that mitigating factor, the prosecution maintain a neutral position.

Background and mitigation of D5

17.D5 was born in Hong Kong and is now 32 years old. He lives with his father (64 years old) and mother (61 years old). D5 is the only child of the family. D5 received education up to Form 4 and then started working as a waiter.

18.D5 has 7 previous conviction records and 6 of them relating to gambling. Ms Lai, counsel for D5, submits that the remaining conviction record of D5 is not only of the same nature as present but was also committed out of the same background. In early 2022, D5 encountered financial difficulties during the COVID pandemic. In response to a recruitment of stock trading assistants referred by a friend, he went to a hotel for a job interview whereby he was asked to lend his 2 bank accounts in return for monetary rewards of several thousand dollars. Out of momentary greed, he provided ATM cards and online banking passwords of his bank accounts with BOC and Nanyang Commercial Bank. At that time, he knew his bank accounts would be used for handling illegal money. Ultimately, he committed the present offence out of the BOC account and a case in the Fanling Magistrates’ Court (“Fanling Case”) out of the Nanyang Commercial Bank account. In the Fanling Case, D5 had already pleaded guilty and served a 6 months’ imprisonment. He was released on 24 February 2023.

19.D5 has reflected upon his past wrongdoings while on remand and indicated his wish to turn a new leaf. He intends to apply for vehicle repair courses once he starts serving his sentence.

20.Ms Lai handed up mitigation letters written by D5, his parents and grandmother begging for a lenient sentence.

Background and mitigation of D6

21.D6 is now 25 years old and was 21 at the time of offence. He was locally born and is the only child of his family. He resides with his father (65 years old) and mother (62 years old). He was of clear record at the time of offence.

22.In 2019, with an unsatisfactory result in public examination, D6 enrolled himself into a diploma course. However, due to financial pressure of the family, D6 decided to start helping out at the hardware shop operated by his parents, and taking up part-time job as sales and waiter. He also completed a foundation diploma and aspired to become a kindergarten teacher. In around July 2023, he enrolled a 2 years high diploma programme which was due to start in September 2023. Unfortunately, he was arrested on 22 August 2023 for the present case. Still, unwilling to give up, D6 continued his education. A mitigation letter written by his class teacher indicates that D6 displayed a genuine desire to teach as well as to serve the community.

23.Besides, D6, D6’s mother and friends also wrote mitigating letters and ask me to impose a lenient sentence.

24.Ms Tin, counsel for D6, submits that D6 was charged with an offence also of the same nature as present and also committed out of the same background. In a gist, D6 followed instruction of a colleague of his friend known as “William” and set up 2 bank accounts. Then, he handed over the bank documents of both accounts. Ultimately, he committed the present offence out of the BOC account and a case in the Kowloon City Magistrates’ Court (“Kowloon City Case”) out of another bank account. In the Kowloon City Case, D6 was convicted after trial and served a 18 months’ imprisonment. He was released on 14 September 2025.

Sentencing Consideration

25.Money laundering is a serious offence.  An immediate term of imprisonment should be imposed to deter would-be offenders.

26.In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court of Appeal stressed again the fact-specific nature of the offence regarding sentence. However, the amount of the money being laundered is a major sentencing consideration.  In paragraph 9 thereof, Cheung JA stated:

“9.There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence because the facts vary from case to case. However the following factors are to be taken into account when determining sentence:

(a) It is the amount of money involved that is a major consideration and not the amount of benefit received by a defendant in the transaction.

(b) The culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, support and encouragement offered to the commission of an indictable offence. So a defendant’s level of participation and the number of occasions on which he is involved in the “money laundering” activities are relevant factors to be considered.

(c) The offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence does not necessarily have any direct correlation with the indictable offence in question. However if the relevant indictable offence can be identified, the court may take into account the sentence imposed on the indictable offence per se when determining the sentence of the dealing offence.

(d) If the case has an international element involving activities carried out across different regions, the court may impose a more severe sentence. This is to protect Hong Kong’s reputation as an international finance and banking hub from being tarnished.

(e) The length of time the offence lasted.”

27.In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, Yeung JA (as Yeung VP then was) observed that:

“12.“Money laundering” is a serious offence for not only does it encourage criminal activities indirectly, but also attempts to legitimise the proceeds of crime. In order to crack down on serious crimes and to prevent offenders from getting financial gains, it is necessary to deter the commission of “money laundering” offences (see Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Javid Kamran (unrep., CACC 400/2004, [2005] HKEC 80), HKSAR v Xu Xia Li [2004] 4 HKC 16).

13.Generally, the sentence for a “money laundering” offence 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” is in fact derived. Of course if there is information to prove that the “black money” originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking and other organised crimes etc, or the defendant’s benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward.

14.This Court has, in a number of other similar cases, also listed other factors relevant to the sentence to be imposed including the number of offences, the length of time the offence lasted, the degree to which the defendant participated in the offence involving “black money” and whether or not it was an organised and sophisticated crime etc.

15.In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, Cheung JA set out the amounts of money involved and the sentences passed in a number of “money laundering” cases. The sentencing 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.”

28.In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal emphasized that “the question of the amount of money laundered is not the be-all and end-all of a case, but is a significant feature”.  The Court went on to elaborate on the other relevant factors to be considered (at paragraph 40 of the judgment):

(1) The nature of the predicate offence for generating “black money” and the sentence to be imposed;

(2) Whether the defendant knew what the predicate offence was;

(3) Whether there is an international element;

(4) Whether the offence of “money laundering” involves elaborate steps, schemes or fraudulent means;

(5) Whether there is a criminal syndicate;

(6) The number of transactions and the length of time during which the offences were committed;

(7) Whether the defendant continued to launder money after knowing the nature of the predicate offence; and

(8) The role and remuneration of the defendant.

29.In the present case, there is no evidence that D2, D5 or D6 knew the source of the money.  They did not commit the offences for a long time.  The modus operandi was not complicated or sophisticated.  They were not a member of the criminal syndicate perpetrating the scam.  There was no or only limited international dimension.  Their role were merely a stooge bank account holder. All of them can be regarded as a first-time offender of this type of offence.

30.In respect of D2, the total amount of black money involved were about HK$12 million, including about HK$8.1 million for charge 2, HK$2.5 million for charge 7 and HK$1.3 million for charge 8.

31.I adopt 4 years and 9 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for charge 2, 3 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for charge 7 and 2 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for charge 8. Given the one-third discount for the guilty plea, sentence for charge 2 is reduced to 3 years and 2 months’ imprisonment, charge 7 is reduced to 2 years’ imprisonment and charge 8 is reduced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment.

32.D2 was young and of clear record when he handed over his bank accounts to the fraud syndicate. I am persuaded that at the material time, D2 was under coercion and decide to reduce the sentence for each charge for 2 months. So, charge 2 is reduced to 3 years’ imprisonment; charge 7 is reduced to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment; charge 8 is reduced to 1 year and 2 months’ imprisonment.

33.In respect of D5, the total amount of the black money involved were about HK$3.8 million. I adopt 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for charge 5. Giving him the one-third discount for his guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

34.D5 has already served 6 months’ imprisonment in his Fanling Case. Should D5’s case be dealt with together with his Fanling Case, totality principle would certainly be considered. In that special circumstance, I decide to reduce the sentence by 3 months to 1 years and 11 month’s imprisonment.

35.In respect of D6, the total amount of the black money involved were about HK$3.6 million. I adopt 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment as the starting point for charge 6. Giving him the one-third discount for his guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment.

36.Should D6’s case be dealt with together with his Kowloon City Case, totality principle would certainly be considered. D6 has already served 18 months’ imprisonment. In that special circumstance, I decide to reduce the sentence by 9 months to 1 year and 5 months’ imprisonment.

OSCO application

37.The prosecution applied for enhancement of sentence based upon section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455), Laws of Hong Kong. In support of the application, the prosecution relied upon a statement made by Chief Inspector Li Yiu Man dated 30 December 2025 in which the following statistics is provided:

(1) the number of deception cases and money laundering cases, number of arrested persons for those cases and number to stooges identified from arrested person; and

(2) amount of reported losses and/or proceeds laundered, and use of stooge account in deception cases and money laundering cases (detected with arrest).

38.According to the statistics, the use of stooges in both deception and money laundering cases have been prevalent in the past 6 years. The defence had no objection to the said application for enhancement of sentence. Ms Lai suggested that a 20% to 25% enhancement would be sufficient.

39.On the basis of the evidence before me, I am satisfied that the offences of deception and money laundering involving the use of stooges are prevalent. Coupled with the nature and extent of the harm done to the society, I am of the view that it warrants, in the present case, an enhancement of 20%.

Sentence

40.After enhancement of 20%, the sentence of charge 2 should be 3 years and 7.2 months’ imprisonment and I decide to round off to 3 years and 7 months’ imprisonment. For charge 7, the sentence should be 2 years and 2.4 months’ imprisonment, and I decide to round off to 2 years and 2 months’ imprisonment. For charge 8, the sentence should be 1 year and 4.8 months’ imprisonment, and I decide to round down to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment. All sentence of charge 2, 7 and 8 to be run concurrently.

41.For charge 5, after enhancement of 20%, the sentence is 2 years and 3.6 months’ imprisonment. I decide to round down the sentence to 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

42.For charge 6, after enhancement of 20%, the sentence should be 1 year and 8.4 months’ imprisonment. I decide to round off the sentence to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.

43.To conclude, D2 is sentenced to 3 years and 7 months’ imprisonment; D5 is sentenced to 2 years and 3 months’ imprisonment; D6 is sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment.