HKSAR v. Xu Wenda

DCCC 285/2025

[2026] HKDC 696

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 285 OF 2025

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to 3 charges of "Money laundering". In short, he "lent" his bank accounts to someone.

Summary of Facts

2.On 28 November 2023, the defendant opened the bank accounts as particularized in Charges 2 and 3 (Accounts 2 and 3) respectively in Tsim Sha Tsui and Sheung Shui.  On 30 November 2023, the defendant opened the bank account as particularized in Charge 1 (Account 1) in Mongkok.  He was the sole signatory of all 3 accounts.

Deception

3.Between November 2023 and February 2024, PWs 1 to 4 were deceived by "Boost-sale jobs" and cryptocurrency investment scams.  They made payments to various bank accounts, which aggregated to about $4.8 million, of which a total sum of $592,900 were paid to Accounts 2 and 3.

Money laundering

Charge 1

4.Between 6 and 14 February 2024, Account 1 received 13 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $1,470,810.  An aggregated sum of $1,470,726 was withdrawn by 26 transactions.

Charge 2

5.Between 28 November 2023 and 14 February 2024, Account 2 received 97 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $2,133,684.46 (of which a total sum of $442,900 came from PWs 1 and 4).  A total sum of $2,133,652 was withdrawn by 114 transactions.

Charge 3

6.Between 28 November 2023 and 31 March 2024, Account 3 received 49 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $1,458,474.43 (of which a total sum of $150,000 came from PWs 2 and 3).  A total sum of $1,458,305 was withdrawn by 71 transactions.

7.Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals, as well as the daily balances of Accounts 1 to 3, the police found typical features of money laundering.

Other evidence

8.According to the Immigration Department, the defendant had taken day trips to Hong Kong respectively on 28 and 30 November 2023.

9.The defendant's background and income are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by Accounts 1 to 3.

Arrest

10.The defendant was arrested on 19 July 2024 in relation to Account 1 when he entered Hong Kong at Lo Wu Control Point.  In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted having opened Account 1 for the purpose of trading in cryptocurrency.  He did not use Account 1 because he did not download the trading platform.

11.The defendant was arrested on 17 September 2024 in relation to Accounts 2 and 3.  In his written records of interview, the defendant admitted having opened Accounts 2 and 3.  He then lent both accounts to a friend named "Hung Ka Kee" without receiving any reward.

12.The defendant now admits that during the respective offence periods, he, together with Hung Ka Kee, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the funds received by Accounts 1 to 3, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with those funds.

Mitigation & Sentence

13.The defendant is 27 and has a clear record. He resides in Dongguan together with his parents and elder brother. Defence counsel Ms. Ko informed me that prior to his arrest, the defendant worked at his father's company selling real estate and construction materials. His income was RMB10,000 per month. The defendant had thyroid problem in 2020 and requires regular medication. In mitigation, Ms. Ko submitted that the defendant foolishly believed that he was helping a friend. He knew nothing about the scams against PWs 1 to 4.

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. Ms. Ko 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 27 March 2026. I am satisfied that in 2024, 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 3 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) 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, he 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 $1,470,810went through Account 1 within a period of 2.5 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 3 years' imprisonment[4]. 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 2

25.An aggregated sum of $2,133,684.46 went through Account 2 within a period of 2.5 months, of which $442,900 came from PWs 1 and 4. 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.An aggregated sum of $1,458,474.43 went through Account 3 within a period of 4 months, of which $150,000 came from PWs 2 and 3. 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.

Overall sentence

27.The grand total received by Accounts 1 to 3 was $5.06 million odd. I consider a global starting point of 4 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 32 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 40 months. Hence, I order 5 months in Charge 2 to run consecutively to Charge 1; and 5 months in Charge 3 to run consecutively to Charges 1 and 2.