HKSAR v. Cheung Po Sheung

DCCC 305/2023

[2026] HKDC 666

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 305 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.On 26 September 2024, D1 pleaded guilty to two counts of money laundering (Charges 1 and 2). She admitted to the content of the summary of facts and was convicted accordingly for the two charges.

2.Sentencing was adjourned, pending for D1 to provide assistance to the authorities against an accomplice, TSUI King Wai (“AP”). I am now informed that AP pleaded guilty before trial, and therefore, D1 is now ready to be sentenced.

THE FACTS

3.At all material times, AP was the proprietor of “Wai Wan Fashion Co” (“Wai Wan”)  at Plover Cover Shopping Arcade, Tai Po.

4.In 2014, the Police instituted an investigation against AP for Fraud in which she was suspected to have borrowed credit cards from numerous customers of Wai Wan to make fictitious purchases of goods at the company. In this regard, credit cards were purportedly used to make purchases but no goods were indeed sold. It was alleged by the customers that AP had in the end not settled the payments of the bills of their credit cards as agreed.

5.D1 was one of the customers who made a report against AP. Upon investigation, the Police found suspicious transactions in the following two accounts which were held by D1:

Charge	A/C Owner	Bank	Account
1	D1	Bank of China	A
2	D1	Nanyang Bank	B

6.The transactions of the above two accounts have shown mirror patterns at the material time. After monies had been deposited into the accounts, they were often withdrawn in round up figures in a short period of time.

7.When the police looked further into the transactions of these bank accounts, they found the following facts:

(i)  Between 25 April 2012 and 11 December 2013, D1’s Account A received a total of HK$10,314,829.22 by way of 276 transactions. The exact amount was withdrawn via 436 bank withdrawals.

(ii)  Between 4 January 2012 and 11 December 2013, D1’s Account B received a total of HK$8,083,321.04 by way of 207 deposits of. The sum was entirely withdrawn by way of 400 bank withdrawals.

8.D1 was arrested on 17 July 2017 for conspiracy to defraud. She was given police bail. On 12 June 2019, she was temporarily released.

9.On 17 June 2021, the police took a VRI with D1 for money laundering. Under caution, she stated inter alia that AP was her friend whom she met in 2009.  During the material time, Account A and B were lent to AP and operated by AP. Since their relationship was good, D1 did not think much when lending the accounts to AP.  She did not receive any reward from AP for lending of the accounts.

CRIMINAL RECORD

10.D1 has a previous spent record of theft in 2016 in which she was fined $3,000.

MITIGATION

11.D1 was born in Hong Kong and is currently 67 years old. She is married with two children, both in their thirties. She currently lives with her younger brother and her daughter. Her husband, aged 70, suffers from Alzheimer’s disease and currently lives in an elderly care facility.

12.D1 has an education level up to Form 3. She worked as a petrol station attendant in her last employment in 2025, earning $15,000 per month.

13.D1 did not know the nature of the predicate offence. She did not know that her account was being used by AP to deal with proceeds of indictable offence. In pleading guilty, D1 accepts that she had reasonable grounds to believe that that was the case.

14.D1 did not receive any payment for allowing AP to access the two bank accounts. There was never any expectation of remuneration. D1 agreed to lend her bank accounts because she thought she was helping a friend.

15.This case has been hanging over D1 for many years. The police began investigating AP since at least 2014. D1 had been cooperating with police since then and had provided multiple statements, including one from 20 January 2014. D1 was later arrested in 2017 (originally for conspiracy to defraud). The whole ordeal has been plaguing her for around 10 years.

16.It has been 9 years since D1 was arrested in 2017 (and 11 years since she first gave statements to the police, fully cooperating with their investigation). It is submitted that this does appear to be an inordinately long time, and the cause cannot be placed on D1. D1 understands that the pandemic may have played a role in the delay, but nevertheless, it has been a source of great stress and anxiety hanging over her for a long time.

17.In mitigation, Mr Cheung for D1 relies upon HKSAR v Ma Fushan [2024] HKDC 1413, HKSAR v Ng Wai Chuen [2023] HKDC 1453, HKSAR v NIE Xiaoyun [2026] HKDC 581 and HKSAR v LEE Chun Kit[2026] HKDC 496. He submits that a starting sentence of 5 years or less would be appropriate in the circumstances. However, he concedes that the above decisions are all from the District Court which have no binding effects on me.  He agrees that each case has to be decided in light of its own facts.

SENTENCE

18.Money laundering is a serious offence. The offence carries a maximum penalty of a fine of $5 million and an imprisonment term of 14 years on indictment.

19.In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal set out the general approach and principles relevant to sentence in money laundering cases. There is a non-exhaustive list of factors, such as the nature of the predicate offence; the state of the offender’s knowledge; any international dimension, involvement of an organised crime syndicate; sophistication and planning; the number of transactions; the length of time over which the offences occurred; and the role of the offender; whether the activity occurred after the defendant became aware of the nature of the funds.

20.There are no set guidelines for money laundering.  However, in Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the court referred to a review of money laundering cases in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545. 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.

21.Wan Kwok Keung is not tariff yet it serves as a useful reference.

22.In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P held :-

Generally speaking, the sentence passed in a "money laundering" case is primarily to reflect the amount of the "illicit/black money" involved. 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…

23.I accept what D1 did was lending her accounts to AP.  She had no knowledge of how they were being used.  She received no remuneration. However, the global sum for the 2 charges come to a total of $18,398,060.26 for less than 2 years.  Even there is no evidence that D1 dealt with the funds that went through her accounts, in my view, the sentence must reflect the amount of black money involved. The court must pass a clear message to the public that people who lend their account and play any role in money laundering will receive severe punishment.  I consider a global starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment is just and appropriate.

Guilty plea and assistance to authorities

24.D1 is entitled to 40% reduction (including the one-third reduction for guilty plea)  for her assistance to the authorities without giving evidence: see Z v HKSAR (2007)  10 HKCFAR 183. 

Enhancement of sentence

25.In this case, the prosecution applies for an enhancement of the sentence based on section 27(2)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance.

26.According to Chief Inspector Li, who is attached in the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Bureau, he stated in his statement that money laundering stooge has minimal or no involvement in the predicate offence or has little or no knowledge on the predicate. Most of them allow criminal to have full access in control of the bank accounts. The increasing number of stooge accounts interferes the normal operation of the banking system and encourages more crimes to be committed. The use of stooge is increasing in both figures and proportion. There is a rising trend in the use of stooge from 31.38% recorded in the year of 2020 to 70.19% recorded in the year of 2023.  The proportion maintains high of over 70% from the year of 2024 till February of 2026.

27.D1 has no objection to this application.

28.I have considered the statement of Chief Inspector Li, and I attach full weight to the statement.

29.In my view, it is a case where enhancement should be made. I find that the enhancement of 22% is appropriate.

Charge 1

30.A total sum of $10,314.829.22 was received by Account A.  I would adopt a starting point of 60 months’ imprisonment.  With her assistance to authority, her sentence is reduced to 36 months.  With the 22% enhancement, I sentence her to 44 months.

Charge 2

31.A total sum of $8,083,231.04 was received by Account B.   I would adopt a starting point of 54 months’ imprisonment.  With her assistance to authority, her sentence is reduced to 32 months.  With the 22% enhancement, I sentence her to 40 months.

32.Now I consider if there are mitigating factors which warrant reduction.

33.According to the chronology of events provided by Prosecution, D1 was arrested in July 2017.  The case file was sent to the DoJ for advice in May 2019 and it was only until January 2023 that the advice was given to prosecute D1. In my judgment, there are reasons why the police and DoJ took so long to advise as it involved 11 banks, 26 banks accounts and 17 credit cards. The case is not a straightforward and simple one. However, there has been a delay of 7 years.

34.I find that the delay has resulted in significant stress for D1 or left her in uncertain suspense. The delay has nothing to do with D1. I would reduce the sentence by 6 months: see HKSAR v Chiu Chi Wing CACC 243/2012.

35.Over the past few years, D1 has been experiencing regular bouts of light headedness. On at least two occasions, it was serious enough for her to seek medical attention, when she nearly fainted.  In view of her age and her present health condition, I grant her a further reduction of 1 month.

36.As a result, the sentence for Charge 1 and 2 is reduced by a total of seven months to 37 months and 33 months respectively.

37.I have indicated earlier that a global starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment is right. Given her assistance to authority, the sentence is reduced 40% to 36 months. With the enhancement of 22%, the sentence becomes 44 months.  With the aforesaid two mitigating factors, it warrants a further discount of 7 months. The overall sentence is down to 37 months.

38.In the circumstances, I find that a term of 37 months should adequately reflect the overall criminality of 2 bank accounts with black money of $18 million odd. I order the sentences for Charge 1 and Charge 2 to run concurrently with each other. The total sentence that D1 has to serve is one of 37 months’ imprisonment.