HKSAR v. Lee Chun Kit

DCCC 756 & 1593/2024
Consolidated

[2026] HKDC 496

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 756 & 1593 OF 2024

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to 4 charges of "Money laundering". In short, he lent his 4 bank accounts to other people.

Summary of Facts

2.In November 2022, the defendant opened the 4 bank accounts as particularized in Charges 1 to 4 (Accounts 1 to 4).  He was the sole signatory of all 4 accounts.

Deception

3.Between November and December 2022, victims surnamed Meng, Ang and Wang (respectively PWs 1 to 3) were deceived by "Fake mainland official" scams.  PWs 1 to 3 lost $4 million, $58 million and $989,000 respectively.  Another victim surnamed Kwok (PW4) was deceived by a "Job" scam.  She lost a total sum of $463,196.

Money laundering

Charge 1

4.Between 23 November 2022 and 3 January 2023, Account 1 received 79 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $3,371,693.21 (of which $520,000 came from PW3).  A total sum of $3,367,761 was withdrawn by 287 transactions.

Charge 2

5.Between 23 and 28 November 2022, Account 2 received 5 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $2,442,000 (of which $500,000 came indirectly from PW2 through an intermediary named Leung Chi Wai).  Funds deposited into Account 2 were disposed of on the same day they were received.

Charge 3

6.On 29 November 2022, Account 3 received a deposit in the sum of $1 million, which came indirectly from PW2 through an intermediary named Leung Chi Wai.  The said sum of $1 million was then transferred from Account 3 to 6 different bank accounts.

Charge 4

7.Between 15 November and 8 December 2022, Account 4 received 19 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $6,992,559.05 (of which $4 million came from PW1).  Funds deposited into Account 4 were disposed of on the same day they were received.

Arrest

8.The defendant was arrested on 6 December 2023.  Under caution, he admitted having lent Account 1 to other people.  In his video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he had worked as a delivery driver for a few years earning about $19,000 per month.  He explained how he encountered a friend (A) and A's friend (B) in a restaurant one day.  A asked the defendant to open Account 1 for B, who needed a bank account for his business.  The defendant completed the account opening steps.  He then gave the login passcode of Account 1 to B, who gave him $1,500 in return.

9.The defendant was arrested again on 5 April 2024.  Under caution, he admitted having lent Account 4 to other people.  In his video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that in 2022, he re-encountered a friend "Ah Ho" in a restaurant.  Ah Ho wanted to borrow a bank account from the defendant.  He did not ask Ah Ho why he wanted to borrow a bank account.  Half an hour later, a friend of Ah Ho appeared and gave the defendant $1,900 through Ah Ho.  The defendant then opened Account 4 in the presence of Ah Ho and his friend.

10.The defendant was arrested on 16 August 2024.  In his video recorded interview, he remained silent regarding Accounts 2 and 3.

11.The defendant now admits that during the offence period, he, together with persons unknown, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the respective funds held in Accounts 1 to 4, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with those funds.

Mitigation & Sentence

12.The defendant is 31 and has one conviction record, which was a "Robbery" offence. Defence counsel Mr. Liu informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his parents. In December 2023, he was a lorry driver, earning about $20,000 per month. At the age of about 26, the defendant injured his waist in an industrial accident. He now receives a disability allowance of about $3,000 per month.

13.In mitigation, Mr. Liu explained that the defendant met his friend "Ka Ho" in a youth home during his probation order in 2011. They did not keep in touch after the defendant's probation order had ended. When he bumped into Ka Ho around October 2022, the defendant foolishly agreed to open bank accounts for Ka Ho and his friend because he wanted to regain Ka Ho's friendship. The defendant is remorseful for what he did. He had failed to consider the serious consequences of giving away his bank accounts to others.

14.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. Liu did not object.

15.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]."

16.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 6 January 2026. 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.

17.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.

18.This is a typical case of money laundering by way of stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the deception against PWs 1 to 4, 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 4 accounts and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

19.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]

20.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.

21.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

22.I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i) except the total sum of $520,000from PW3, the funds received by Account 1 were related to any predicate offence; and (ii) the defendant was involved in 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.

23.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of $3,371,693.21 went through Account 1 within a period of 1.5 months. 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.

24.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

25.An aggregated sum of $2,442,000went through Account 2 within a period of 19 days, of which $500,000came indirectly from PW2. I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. 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.

Charge 3

26.A sum of $1 million, which came indirectly from PW2, went through Account 3 within a period of 16 days. I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. 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.

Charge 4

27.An aggregated sum of $6,992,559.05 went through Account 4 within a period of 3.5 weeks, of which $4 million were from PW1. I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

28.The total sum received by the 4 bank accounts was $13.8 million odd. Bearing in mind the totality principle, I consider a global starting point of 5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just[5]. 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: the sentences for Charges 2 and 3 to run concurrently; 5 months in Charges 2 and 3 to run consecutively to Charge 1; and 5 months in Charge 4 to run consecutively to Charges 1 to 3.