HKSAR v. Fuentes Ma. Rochel Catayoc

DCCC 1097/2024

[2026] HKDC 132

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1097 OF 2024

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant has been convicted after trial of a single offence of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence.  The total amount of monies involved is in excess of $5 million.

2.The defendant’s proved involvement relates to the opening of the account through which the tainted monies were laundered and thus the defendant can be linked to the commission of the offence by the opening of what is described as a stooge account, potentially of the using it herself or allowing other to potentially use the account for the processing of the tainted funds and that is where her culpability lies.

3.As far as the defendant’s background is concerned, she is a person of clear record.  She is a Filipino National on a working visa, working as a domestic helper in Hong Kong, studied up to high school in the Philippines and had been a factory worker in the Philippines and as I said it already, she has worked extensively as a domestic helper in Hong Kong and overseas.  She is now single.  She has a son and a daughter aged respectively 16 and 15 who are, I understand, living in the Philippines.  The defendant has been detained on remand since 2024, two years ago.

4.The approach to sentences is generally as follows:

There is no guideline sentence for this offence. That can be found from the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536. A number of factors are generally taken into account and these could be seen both in the case of Hsu Yu Yi and also in the case of Boma Amaso at CACC 335/2010. The factors of the court should take into account or at least look into when sentencing are factors such as the nature of the predicate offence, here it appears to be some form of fraud; what the state of knowledge of the offender would be, whether there was any knowledge of the predicate offence and also knowledge that the funds were the proceeds of an indictable offence; whether there is any international dimension which is an aggravating factor; the general sophistication of the offence and whether the offence is committed on behalf of an organised criminal syndicate. Also, look at the number of transactions and the length over time over which the offence was committed and whether money has been continued to be laundered after the discovery of the offence.

5.The court also takes into account what was said in Boma, it follows that the sentencing court should have regard to the role of the offender and the acts performed by them.  In this regard, the director of a laundering operational scheme should attract a greater sentence than a person engaged by him, although sentence should be sufficient to deter those who might be prevailed upon by directing minds.  In the case of a person down the chain, the court would wish to have regard to whether a benefit has been received and if so the nature and size of the benefit but within the category of person down the chain, there will be gradations of culpability.  So, for example, the drug addict or petty crook is paid a small amount to open an account and hand over its operation to another with no more participation, no more knowledge that it is going to be used for some sort of crime is much less culpable than an offender of a different sort not used in that way.

6.Although there are no guidelines in those matters, in the case of Hsu Yu Yi and also in the case of Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, there was analysis of previous cases and it has been said that the starting point of 3 years or so where the tainted monies have involved between 1 to 2 million, 4 years or so where it is between 3 to 6 million and could be up to 5 years where it is above $10 million. Of course, those are not guidelines and not necessarily operative in each case.  I take from Boma that it is incumbent on the court to look closely at the role of the offender and the acts performed by them and simply see the figures given in Hsu Yu Yi as being a general analysis of a range of sentences over a number of years.

7.Taking into account what the defendant can actually be proved to have done in this case, the role of the defendant in this case is I would not describe it as minimal but it is a lesser role, she is certainly not a director of a money laundering operation.  She has been, on the face of it, paid a small sum of money to be involved in the opening of the account and probably hand over its operations to others with the knowledge that the account is going to be used for the processing of some form of tainted money, she after all simply works here as a Filipino domestic helper.  The court must carry a sentence which would, on the face of it, still deter such people from conducting these operations but the sentence itself must bear in mind the actual role of the defendant. 

8.I also take into account that this sentence will be subject to enhancement under Section 27 of the relevant ordinance.

9.I consider, taking all these factors into account, that the operative sentence should be one of 39 months’ imprisonment. The prosecution ask for an enhancement of that sentence.  They have under Section 27(2) of Cap 455, having regard to the prevalence and the use of stooge accounts for the commission of specified offences and the nature and extent of harm caused to the community by these offences.  In my view the evidence produced by Chief Inspector Li provides evidence upon which the court can and should in this case enhance the sentence.  I do note there has been a, as I would describe, plateauing of these deception cases in 2025 and that I will bear in mind when determining the actual percentage and increase of this sentence having regard to the requested enhancement. 

10.I consider an enhancement of 6 months should be appropriate in this case, that is in the region of 20 per cent, slightly less than that, but I think it is appropriate to reach the correct figure for sentence in the case of this defendant.

11.So my final sentence of imprisonment will be one of 45 months’ imprisonment on this charge.