HKSAR v. Chan Hin Lun

DCCC 306/2024 & 970/2025 (Consolidated)

[2026] HKDC 547

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 306 OF 2024 AND 970 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.D2 Chan Hin Lun is charged before me on a Consolidated Charge Sheet (“the CCS”)  consisting of 6 charges. Charge 1 is a Conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence but it is preferred against D1 Lam Hing Kai only and which has already been dealt with by DDJ M Chow on 10 January 2025 under DCCC 306/2024 by way of a plea: [2025] HKDC 74 refers.

2.Therefore, I do not need to deal with Charge 1 under the CCS.

3.D2 before me faces Charges 2 to 6 under the CCS, all money laundering charges.  He pleaded guilty to those 5 charges.

4.The Statement of Offence under the 5 charges are the same, that is, Dealing with property 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.

5.The Particulars of Offence are that D2, between A and B, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong, together with C, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely a total sum of S Hong Kong currency in the bank account with T, account number U, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

6.For Charge 2, A is 11 August 2021; B is 16 September 2021; C is another person known as “梁偉強” (Leung Wai Keung); S is $2,681,834; T is Nanyang Commercial Bank, Limited; U is 04349410697270.

7.For Charge 3, A is an unknown day in November 2020; B is 9 March 2021; C is another person known as “Dada”; S is $1,677,850.05; T is Airstar Bank Limited; U is 889000010385.

8.For Charge 4, A is an unknown day in March 2021; B is 11 May 2021; C is another person known as “梁偉強” (Leung Wai Keung); S is $3,980,286.9; T is Bank of China (Hong Kong)  Limited; U is 012-880-1-059335-9.

9.For Charge 5, A is an unknown day in June 2021; B is 15 October 2021; C is another person unknown; S is $2,467,852.89; T is Mox Bank Limited; U is 389-74922504696.

10.For Charge 6, A is an unknown day in March 2021; B is 13 April 2021; C is another person known as “梁偉強” (Leung Wai Keung); S is $2,535,246.73; T is ZA Bank Limited; U is 882001939353.

Facts admitted by D2

11.At the material times, D2 was the account holder of the following 5 accounts, namely:-

(a)  a bank account numbered 04349410697270 held with Nanyang Commercial Bank, Limited (“A/C-1”);

(b)  a bank account numbered 889000010385 held with Airstar Bank Limited (“A/C-2”);

(c)  a bank account numbered 012-880-1-059335-9 held with Bank of China (Hong Kong)  Limited (“A/C-3”);

(d)  a bank account numbered 389-74922504696 held with Mox Bank Limited (“A/C-4”); and

(e)  a bank account numbered 882001939353 held with ZA Bank Limited (“A/C-5”).

Online fraud relating to Charge 3 (A/C-2)

12.Between January and March 2021, PW2 to PW14 fell prey to similar Boost-Sales scam. In general, these victims were lured by swindlers (who mainly posted advertisement or approached them on online social media)  to promote business on online shops/platforms with attractive commission. As a result, these victims were deceived to transfer totalling around HKD696,712 to various designated bank accounts provided by the swindlers. Among which, a total of HKD650,312 was remitted to A/C-2 during the period from 15 January to 5 March 2021. Scams were unveiled when these victims tried to withdraw/retrieve their money but failed, and the swindlers became out of reach. Cases were reported.

Investigation on A/C-2 [Charge 3]

13.Police investigated A/C-2, and found the following:-

(a)  On 16 August 2020, D2 opened A/C-2 as sole signatory. Copy of D2’s HKID card and selfie photos were submitted to the bank for identity verification. He reported working as a self-employed transportation worker and that the source of income was from his salary.

(b)  During the period from 25 September 2020 to 9 March 2021, a total of HKD1,678,050.05 in 229 transactions (including the above deposits from PW2 to PW14)  was deposited into A/C-2 and the same amount was transferred out in 358 transactions.

(c)  On 25 September 2020, there was a deposit of HKD200, which was withdrawn on the same day. A/C-2 then became idle, and was active from 14 January to 9 March 2021 whereas the incoming funds were mostly transferred out at similar amount or an aggregate amount after consolidation of deposits on the same day or shortly after, resulting in a constantly low daily balance. Features of the use of test deposit of a small amount, large amount of transactions, quick speed of fund dissipation, mirror pattern of aggregate amounts of deposits and withdrawals, and incommensurability of funds deposits were noted in the above period.

(d)  A/C-2 served as a temporary repository of funds in the above period.

Arrest and Caution [A/C-2]

14.Between 25 April 2021 and 21 September 2021, D2 had been arrested and cautioned by PW16 to PW18 regarding the transactions in A/C-2 due to the reporting of different victims to different police stations. A total of 4 VRIs were conducted with D2, who under caution provided consistent statements. In summary, D2’s version is that:-

(a)  Regarding D2’s background, he received education up to Form 5 level and worked as a factory worker for making tofu with monthly salary of around HKD15,000 to HKD18,000. He did not own any assets and companies.

(b)  D2 admitted that he opened A/C-2 by mobile phone in August 2020. The identity document and selfie photos in the opening mandate were submitted by him.

(c)  In around November to December 2020, D2 acquainted a person known as “Dada” pursuant to a recruitment on Facebook. As D2 was in need of money, he sold A/C-2 to ”Dada” in return for HKD1,000 reward. During the process, he changed the mobile number reported in A/C-2 to the telephone number provided by ”Dada”. He also gave the account number, password and his copy HKID card to ”Dada”. He received HKD1,000 payment by FPS later on the same day.

(d)  D2 later learnt that A/C-2 stopped operating because he received letter from Airstar Bank which was mailed to his address in around March or April 2021 informing him that A/C-2 would be suspended.

(e)  D2 believed that ”Dada” bought A/C-2 for normal transaction.

(f)  Apart from A/C-2, D2 also sold his other 3 accounts (ie ZA Account, BOC Account and Mox Account)  to other parties for monetary reward.

(g)  In relation to his BOC and ZA account (subsequently known as A/C-3 and A/C-5), D2 sold these accounts to “梁偉強” (Leung Wai Keung)  in March 2021.

(h)  In relation to his Mox account (subsequently known as A/C-4), D2 sold it to an unknown person whom he acquainted in Facebook and received HKD500 by FPS as monetary reward in June 2021. He had also followed the buyer’s instructions to change the phone number in his Mox account.

First House Search

15.On 16 June 2021, Police conducted house search at D2’s abode in Chung Ha Cheung Lung, Tsuen Wan, and seized, amongst other items, a letter from Airstar Bank (A/C-2)  issued to D2 dated 8 March 2021 and a letter from Bank of China (A/C-3)  issued to D2 dated 23 April 2021.

Investigation on A/C-3 [Charge 4]

16.Police investigated A/C-3, and found the following:-

(a)  On 7 April 2008, D2 opened A/C-3 as sole signatory. Copy of D2’s HKID card was submitted to the bank for identity verification. He reported working as a delivery worker.

(b)  During the period from 13 April 2021 to 11 May 2021, there had been a material change of transaction patterns as reflected by an upsurge influx of money into A/C-3 and withdrawals made to scattered counterparties. A total of HKD3,980,286.9 in 2,042 transactions was deposited into A/C-3 and a total of HKD3,974,253 was withdrawn in 978 transactions.

(c)  Features of large amount of transactions, quick speed of fund dissipation, mirror pattern of aggregate amounts of deposits and withdrawals, and incommensurability of funds deposits were noted in the above period.

(d)  A/C-3 served as a temporary repository of funds in the above period.

Investigation on A/C-5 [Charge 6]

17.Police investigated A/C-5, and found the following:-

(a)  On 27 July 2020, D2 opened A/C-5 as sole signatory. Copy of D2’s HKID card and selfie photo were submitted to the bank for identity verification. He reported working in the “logistics, delivery and warehouse industry”.

(b)  During the period from 26 March 2021 to 13 April 2021, there had been a material change of transaction patterns as reflected by an upsurge influx of money into A/C-5 and withdrawals made to scattered counterparties. A total of HKD2,535,246.73 in 1,421 transactions was deposited into A/C-5 and a total of HKD2,535,246 was withdrawn in 687 transactions.

(c)  Features of large amount of transactions, quick speed of fund dissipation, mirror pattern of aggregate amounts of deposits and withdrawals, and incommensurability of funds deposits were noted in the above period.

(d)  A/C-5 served as a temporary repository of funds in the above period.

Investigation on A/C-4 [Charge 5]

18.Police investigated A/C-4, and found the following:-

(a)  On 24 January 2021, D2 opened A/C-4 as sole signatory. Copy of D2’s HKID card and selfie photo were submitted to the bank for identity verification. He reported working in the “professional video gaming and nightlife” sector.

(b)  There were repeated changes of phone numbers and email addresses for A/C-4 within a year.

(c)  During the period from 14 June 2021 to 15 October 2021, there had been a material change of transaction patterns as reflected by an upsurge influx of money into A/C-4 and withdrawals made to scattered counterparties. A total of HKD2,467,852.89 in 1,219 transactions was deposited into A/C-4 and a total of HKD2,467,852.92 was withdrawn in 687 transactions.

(d)  Features of large amount of transactions, quick speed of fund dissipation, mirror pattern of aggregate amounts of deposits and withdrawals, and incommensurability of funds deposits were noted in the above period.

(e)  A/C-4 served as a temporary repository of funds in the above period.

Online fraud relating to Charge 2 (A/C-1)

19.Between July and October 2021, PW1 fell victim to online romance cum investment scam. PW1 was lured to invest in cryptocurrency on an online platform with promising return.  During the period, PW1 was deceived to transfer a total of HKD4,488,000 into various accounts provided by the unknown swindler, including the remittance of HKD100,000 into A/C-1 on 23 August 2021. Scam was unveiled when PW1 tried to withdraw money from the platform but failed, and the swindler became out of reach. Case was reported.

Investigation on A/C-1 [Charge 2]

20.Police investigated A/C-1, and found the following:-

(a)  On 11 August 2021, D2 opened A/C-1 as sole signatory. He reported working as a transportation worker with monthly salary of HKD25,000. A/C-1 was closed on 16 September 2021.

(b)  During the period from 18 August 2021 to 16 September 2021, a total of HKD2,681,834 in 51 transactions (including the above deposit from PW1)  was deposited into A/C-1 and the same amount was withdrawn in 31 transactions.

(c)  A/C-1 was mainly active for 3 days on 19 August 2021, 20 August 2021 and 23 August 2021 respectively whereas the incoming funds were mostly transferred out at similar amount or an aggregate amount after consolidation of deposits on the same day, resulting in a constantly low daily balance. Features of large amount of transactions, quick speed of fund dissipation, mirror pattern of aggregate amounts of deposits and withdrawals, and incommensurability of funds deposits were noted in the above period.

(d)  A/C-1 served as a temporary repository of funds in the above period.

Arrest and Caution [A/C-1] (Charge 2)

21.On 13 June 2022, D2 was arrested by PW15. On the same day, a VRI was conducted with D2 for the bank transactions in A/C-1. Under caution, D2 revealed, inter alia, that:-

(a)  D2 was educated up to Form five level. He was unemployed with no income.

(b)  In 2020, D2 acquainted with an inmate known as “梁偉強” at Hei Ling Chau Correctional Institution.

(c)  In around June 2021, D2 met “梁偉強” at a hostel at Chungking Mansions, TST. D2 surrendered A/C-1 to “梁偉強” who claimed that he needed bank account for trading and gambling. D2 disclosed the e-banking credentials and handed over the ATM card to “梁偉強”. “梁偉強” promised to give D2 “tea money” after a month. In the interim, as D2 was in need of money, he received about HKD500-1,000 reward from “梁偉強”.

Second House Search

22.On 13 June 2022, Police conducted another house search and seized a set of NCB (A/C-1)  monthly statement issued to D2 dated 31 August 2021.

Caution [A/C-3, A/C-4 and A/C-5] (Charges 4, 5, 6 respectively)

23.On 26 March 2025, PW19 conducted a VRI with D2 inside Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre for the bank transactions in A/C-3, A/C-4 and A/C-5. Under caution for money laundering offence, D2 revealed, inter alia, that:-

Re: A/C-3 (Charge 4)

(a)  D2 confirmed that he was the account holder of A/C-3.

(b)  D2 initially used A/C-3 for salary purpose, but D2 later surrendered it to his friend “梁偉強”, who offered a pecuniary reward between HKD80,000 and HKD100,000 to him in a month.

(c)  D2 accepted the offer as he was in need of money for his drug dependence issue.

(d)  “梁偉強” explained to D2 that A/C-3 would be used to receive proceeds from gambling.

(e)  D2 passed the account credentials and handed over the ATM card to “梁偉強” at the hotel room where the latter stayed.

(f)  D2 could not locate “梁偉強” afterward or receive the reward as promised.

(g)  A/C-3 was also suspended by bank two months later.

Re: A/C-4 (Charge 5)

(h)  D2 confirmed that he was the account holder of A/C-4.

(i)  D2 opened A/C-4 due to the welcome reward offered by the bank.

(j)  D2 confirmed that two of the emails and the residential address in the account’s record belonged to him.

Re: A/C-5 (Charge 6)

(k)  D2 confirmed that he was the account holder of A/C-5.

(l)  D2 opened A/C-5 due to the welcome reward offered by the bank.

(m)  D2 surrendered both A/C-3 and A/C-5 to “梁偉強”, who claimed that he would give D2 “tea money” afterward, but failed to do so.

Movement Record

24.Movement record between January 2019 and September 2023 shows that D2 had been in Hong Kong since 14 January 2020.

25.D2 now admits the Particulars of Offence of Charges 2 to 6.

Criminal record

26.D2 has 4 previous convictions none similar.

Antecedents

27.D2 is aged 35 (30-31 at the time of the offences), educated to F5 level.  He had been a Tofu factory worker from 2018 to 2020.  He has been unemployed since 2021.  D2 was living with his parents and his sibling(s)  in a village in Route Twisk, Tsuen Wan.  D2 is/was married with wife in Mainland.

Mitigation

28.Mr Roy Lau of counsel assigned by the Director of Legal Aid mitigated on behalf of D2.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

29.D2 was educated up to F5 in Hong Kong.  D2 preciously lived with his parents (over 70)  and his sister (36).  D2 was arrested on 13 June 2022.  His father passed away in 2023.

30.D2’s mother, sister and the pastor who wrote a mitigation letter are in court to give D2 support.

31.D2 has 4 convictions in the past with none similar.  Three of them were drug-related.  He has been sentenced to DATC twice.  D2 was last discharged from Hei Ling Chau DATC on 13 July 2020.

32.There are no sentencing guidelines for money laundering cases.

33.In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal set out the following points:

(a)  Given the highly variable circumstances in which the offence might be committed, it was difficult and undesirable to offer guidelines;

(b)  The amount of money laundered was not the be-all and end-all of a case, but it was a significant feature; and

(c)  The court should take into account:-

(i)  The predicate offence;

(ii)  Offender’s knowledge;

(iii)  Whether there is international element;

(iv)  Sophistications and degree of planning;

(v)  Whether it is an organized criminal syndicate;

(vi)  Number of transactions;

(vii)  Whether the offender continued to launder funds after he had discovered the nature of the funds were proceeds of a serious offence; and

(viii)  Role of offender and acts performed by him.

34.In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, Yeung JA (as he then was), in giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said at para 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 “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.”

35.Mr Lau also referred to paras 47 to 50 of the Reasons for Judgment (in Chinese)  of Secretary for Justice v Xie Zhijian, CAAR  4/2024 [2025] HKCA 911.

36.In Boma, the defendant operated the accounts and the remittances; the case involved international elements; the defendant was not a local citizen; he did not have the relevant records of entering Hong Kong; the sum involved was around $10 million.  For Charge 4, involving $7.8 million, the court adopted a starting point of 3.5 years.

37.In HKSAR v Liao Liting (Chinese Reasons for Judgment), CACC 334/2015, the sum involved for the 2 charges was $6,670,093.87.  Charge 1 involved USD378,527.19 (HK$2,952,000)  and Charge 2 involved HK$3,738,211.57. Evidence shows the appellant was heavily involved in committing the offence; the appellant took part in signing the documents for establishing the relevant companies and was the sole director; the appellant came from the Mainland to Hong Kong to establish the bank accounts; the appellant further came to Hong Kong on two occasions to make huge sum withdrawals.  The judge adopted a starting points of 4.5 years for each count.  The Court of Appeal reduced the starting points to 3 years and 4 years and ordered the sentence of the two charges to be served concurrently.

38.Mr Lau then referred to two District Court sentencing cases[1] for comparison purposes.

39.D2 here committed the offences as he needed money to pay for his drugs. During the remand period, D2 was no longer a drug dependent.  He is remorseful and promises not to touch drugs in future.

40.Mr Lau asked the court to bear in mind that in this case:

(a)  There is no evidence to suggest D2 knew or was involved in the predicate offences;

(b)  The amended summary of facts did not touch on any international element;

(c)  D2 sold his accounts to other people (as named in the charges)  for rewards; D2 was not personally involved in operating the accounts; the amounts that D2 received were not high;

(d)  The periods involved ranged from one month to 5 months, which were not very long periods of time; and

(e)  D2 was cooperative throughout the investigation and proactively disclosed A/C-3 to A/C-5.

41.The amounts involved ranged from $1.68 million (Charge 3)  to $3.98 million (Charge 4)  with a total sum of $13,343,070.57.  A reference global starting point for the 5 charges will be around 5 years.

42.Regarding the prosecution’s application for enhancement of sentence under OSCO, Cap 455, Mr Lau submits that:

(a)  D2 has no objection to reception of the statement prepared by the police;

(b)  Under Table A of the statement, it seems that the total number of Stooges arrested reduced slightly from 7,883 in 2024 to 5,355 in 2025;

(c)  Under Table B, it seems that the sum involved in ML cases has reduced from over $10,262 million in 2023 to $3,971 million in 2024 and $4,577 million in 2025. The sum involved in cases with Stooge accounts has also reduced from $4,466 million and 3,675 cases in 2024 to $3,933 million and 3,194 cases in 2025;

(d)  In light of the above, D2 invites the court to adopt a 20% enhancement.

43.In May 2025, prosecution applied to vacate the trial dates relating to DCCC 306/2024 for new charges (under the subsequent DCCC 970/2025)  to be transferred to District Court for consolidation.  On 2 June 2025, D2’s legal team informed the Registrar that D2 would plead guilty to the charges (under DCCC 306/2024)  and intended to plead guilty to the new charges (under DCCC 970/2025).  On 24 July 2025, prosecution amended the charges under DCCC 306/2024.  On 30 September 2025, the two cases were consolidated and D2 indicated his pleas to the charges under DCCC 970/2025.

44.In the circumstances, Mr Lau invites the court to give D2 a full 1/3 sentencing discount.

45.Further, taking into account the totality principle and the fact that the periods of the 5 charges are partly overlapped, Mr Lau invites the court to adopt a partly consecutive sentence so that the sentence after enhancement can fit in the global sentence.

46.Lastly, D2 was arrested in June 2022.  He has been waiting with anxiety for about 3 years 9 months for the outcome of his sentence.  D2 hopes the court may consider giving him a further discount of 2 to 3 months on this score.

47.Mr Lau submitted two mitigation letters written in Chinese respectively by D2 himself and a pastor.  The contents generally are that D2 committed the offences because of drug issues; that he is regretful after reflection and is determined to reform himself and not to re-offend.  The letter writers ask for a lenient sentence for D2 so he may re-integrate into society and turn over a new leaf early.

Sentence

48.D2 committed the offences subject of Charge 5 (A/C-4)  and Charge 2 (A/C-1)  whilst on police bail.  He also sold these two accounts in full knowledge they would be used for money laundering.  These are aggravating factors.

49.I accede to the submission of Mr Lau that a global starting point be adopted.  I have taken on board the particular features of this case as were highlighted by Mr Lau.  Bearing in mind Wan Kwok Keung para 15 and the large number of total transactions during the entire period from November 2020 to 15 October 2021 (almost 12 months), and taking into account the aggravating factors aforesaid, I adopt a global starting point of 5 years 6 months’ imprisonment.

50.Although D2 indicated his guilty plea late in DCCC 306/2024, there hasn’t been a lot of delay due to this factor.  I will exercise my discretion to give him the full 1/3 sentencing discount nonetheless for the whole of the consolidated case.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.

51.In relation to the prosecution’s intention to furnish information under section 27(2)  of OSCO and the associated request to enhance sentences based on prevalence of money laundering offence and the harm caused to the community by recent occurrences of the offence.  Mr Lau has no objection to either but submits that the scope of enhancement should not be higher than 20% in light of the downward trend of the statistics.

52.I duly received the witness statement of CIP Li Yiu Nam dated 2 March 2026.  I am satisfied that money laundering offence is still prevalent and the harm caused to the community by recent occurrences of the offence is still substantial.

53.I am satisfied the power to enhance sentences under section 27(11)  of OSCO is engaged.  However, because of the state of the statistics, I am of the view that a 20% enhancement is sufficient to act as an extra deterrence to D2 and like-minded persons.

54.As an act of mercy, I will discard decimal places in the calculation of the sentence in terms of months.

55.I will impose individual enhanced sentences for all charges and make the appropriate order(s)  of concurrency/consecutiveness to arrive at the final global sentence.

(D2, please stand)

56.For Charge 2, the sentence is 36 months’ imprisonment.

57.For Charge 3, the sentence is 28 months’ imprisonment.

58.For Charge 4, the sentence is 40 months’ imprisonment.

59.For Charge 5, the sentence is 36 months’ imprisonment.

60.For Charge 6, the sentence is 33 months’ imprisonment.

61.I order that the sentences of Charges 3 to 6 are to be served concurrently.  I order that 12 months of the sentence on Charge 2 are to run consecutively to the concurrent sentences of Charges 3 to 6.  The total sentence for the consolidated case is therefore 52 months’ imprisonment.