HKSAR v. Nie Xiaoyun

DCCC 63/2025

[2026] HKDC 581

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 63 OF 2025

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering and was convicted accordingly. Yesterday, the Prosecution faxed a chronology of events in response to the Defence’s allegation of inordinate delay.

Brief Facts

2.Greenaland Enterprise Company Limited (Greenaland) has a bank account with the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank (HSBC), numbered 561-74197-838 (the Account). The Defendant was the director and shareholder of Greenaland, and the sole authorised signatory of the bank account at the material times. 

3.The transaction patterns in the Account displayed money laundering activities between 23 June 2010 and 4 November 2014.  The total transactions amounted to HK$308,945-odd and US$9,540,690-odd (with $7.8 exchange rate, it can be converted to about HK$74.4 million-odd).

4.The Defendant opened the Account on 23 June 2010, which was closed on 8 December 2014.  Only one online banking e-token has been issued for operating the Account. There were 3 sub-accounts in this Account, viz USD savings, HKD current, and HKD savings. Most of the transactions went through the USD savings account, and only a handful went through the HKD savings account. 

5.Between 23 June 2010 and 4 November 2014, the Account had a total of 194 deposits in USD, totalling US$9,540,690.27, and 2 deposits in HKD, totalling HK$308,945.84. Except for one cash deposit of HK$5,000 by ATM, all other deposits were done via internet banking or by remittances. 

6.All 199 withdrawals from the Account were done via internet banking, either on the same day or within a few days, with one exception relating to HK$9,036, which was transferred out by ATM. The transactions in the Account displayed mirroring patterns.

7.The deposits came from 67 different companies. These companies were allegedly involved in a wide range of business, and at least 46 of them were dissolved or deregistered or could not be contacted. The top 10 local depositors either reported having zero profit or did not file any tax return during the offence period.

8.The Defendant was arrested on 18 January 2015. In her cautioned video-recorded interview, the Defendant made, inter alia, the following admissions or statements:-

(1) She worked as a project manager in Shenzhen with a monthly salary of RMB$9,000.

(2) She set up Greenaland in Hong Kong and was the director of the company. The company was in the business of lighting and decoration. She thought she had transferred her shares of Greenaland to others in October 2014.

9.Investigation revealed that the Defendant did not file any tax return in Hong Kong from 2010 to 2014. As for Greenaland, the company reported that either it had no profit or that it was not open for business from 2010 to 2014.

10.From the bank records, it can be seen that swift withdrawals were made after money was deposited into the Account.  The Account maintained low balances, which shows that the Account was used as a temporary repository of funds. 

11.The activities in the Account were incommensurate with the income of the Defendant and the financial position of Greenaland.

Mitigation

12.Defence counsel prepared a lengthy mitigation submissions with 17 various authorities.

13.The Defendant is 46 years old. She was married with a daughter. She raised her child as a single mother as her husband left her in 2022, Defence also explained what happened to the Defendant since her arrest in January 2015. At one stage, the Defendant was led to believe that the police dropped the case against her. It was alleged that the police officer even told her that she would not be charged. The Defendant was re-arrested in October 2024 when she entered into Hong Kong via Lok Ma Chau Checkpoint.  The Defendant has been in custody since then, by now around 17 months.

14.Defence said the Defendant is from a good family and has close family ties. She is well-educated and holds a degree in Business English. The Defendant is remorseful and regretful that she committed the present offence. There is no chance that the Defendant would reoffend.   The Defendant initially set up Greenaland so that she could act as a middleman between overseas buyers and the factories in Dongguan so that she could earn a margin. From 2010 to October 2013, the Defendant assisted her husband’s friends as her husband at that time was an inventor and engineer of a home appliances company. The Defendant was told she was assisting her husband’s friends in buying and selling products through the Account. The Defendant deposited and transferred monies as instructed in an attempt to help her husband’s job. She did not obtain any financial benefit. She gave her internet banking e-token and password to her friend who worked as an accountant for her in order to facilitate the selling of Greenaland. But the Defendant cannot locate this accountant friend. 

15.In addition, the Defence also complained that “the police and prosecution have exhibited unreasonable and inordinate delay in charging the Defendant” (paragraph 15 of the mitigation).

When the Defendant was charged on 30 December 2024, the events were occurred around 10 to 14 years ago.

16.It is submitted that the Defendant did not know the nature of the predicate offence. The Defendant was told that the monies from 23 June 2010 to 30 September 2013 were related to home appliances products being sold by factories in China to companies abroad (paragraph 34 of the mitigation). The Defendant did not perform any due diligence check, but simply put her head in the sand. Defence said the degree of criminality of the Defendant is relatively low. 

17.To a certain extent, there was an international dimension as monies came from many different companies abroad over a span of 4 years. Defence suggested that there is no evidence of any criminal syndicate being involved (paragraph 35 of the mitigation). It is further suggested that the offence was not sophisticated and the Account was used as a middleman. The Defence accepted that over the period of 4 years and 5 months, there were a total of 196 deposits and 199 outward transactions with deposits from 67 companies. The Defendant just transferred monies online in accordance with the instructions from her husband and his friends.

18.The Defence urged the Court to consider suspended sentence and/or to allow a greater discount in sentence. The Defence submitted that the Court could consider taking a starting point of 4½ years (paragraph 66 of the mitigation). With a great discount, the Defendant can be discharged before long, given her period of remand of some 17 months. The Defendant’s sister and 2 of her friends are in Court today to support the Defendant. 

Sentence

19.There are no sentencing guidelines relating to money laundering offences, but the Court of Appeal has established certain factors for sentencing purposes and a possible range of sentences. I do accept that there was a delay in bringing this prosecution, and the Defendant had been released unconditionally in July 2015. But I do not accept that the police officer concerned would make misrepresentation to the Defendant that the case against her was closed and even make jokes about the Defendant’s bail money (paragraphs 15 and 19 of the mitigation).

20.The chronology of events should mention the territory-wide political unrest in 2019/2020 and the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020.  From the travel record of the Defendant, between 1 July 2013 and 29 November 2023 (MFI-1), the Defendant was a frequent visitor to Hong Kong, even during the year of 2019. The Defendant had a clear record in Hong Kong.

21.In her 2 mitigation letters, the Defendant tried to exonerate her responsibility by saying that she trusted her accountant, Ms Hui, and passed the company documents, bank account, and passcode to the latter.  The defendant said this event hurt her parents and daughter.  During the remand period, she continued to study self-directed learning course on psychology organised by the Chinese University of Hong Kong. The Defendant’s 80-year-old father, in his mitigation letter, said he and the Defendant’s mother are suffering from certain illness.  They have 4 kids.  The Defendant is the second child and was the breadwinner or a pillar of the family.  The Defendant is a responsible person who care about the family. Her husband deserted her in 2022.  He hopes the Court can pass a lenient sentence so that they can reunite soon.

22.The Defendant’s 17-year-old daughter said she went to school in Shenzhen, and her mother is a kind-hearted person and she takes great care of everyone in the family, including her stepson, even though after divorce.  The Defendant’s sister also mitigated on behalf of the Defendant and prays for mercy for the Defendant.

23.The Defence accepted that the Defendant did involve in the withdrawals of monies from the Account.  I take the view that the role played by the Defendant was more than just a puppet account holder.

24.Defence counsel suggested that the Court can consider a starting point of around 4.5 years (paragraph 66 of the mitigation).  I accept there is no evidence to show that the Defendant knew about or was involved in the predicated offences.  But there existed international elements because the victim companies were based abroad and most of the deposits were in US dollars.  The Defendant committed cross-border crimes.  The period of the offence was about 4 years and US$9.5 million-odd were deposited into the Account. The total sum involved was about HK$74.9 million with some 67 different companies involved. The Defendant was “fortunate” that the Prosecution did not apply for an enhancement of sentence under s.27 of OSCO. 

25.I have considered the leading authorities in HKSAR v Boma, HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi, and SJ v Wan Kwok Keung. 

26.Taking all factors into account, I would adopt a starting point of 5 years.  With the Defendant’s plea, I would discount the sentence by one-third, reducing it to 40 months.  As I accept that there was a delay in bringing this prosecution against the Defendant, and the Defendant and her family members did suffer during the period.  I would reduce the sentence by 6 months. Hence, I sentence the Defendant to 34 months’ imprisonment.