HKSAR v. Ho Wan Man

DCCC 1564/2024

[2026] HKDC 925

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1564 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to 4 charges of "Money laundering". In short, he lent his 2 bank accounts to other people.

Summary of Facts

The 1^st bank account

2.On 3 September 2020, the defendant opened the bank account as particularized in Charge 1 (Account 1).  He was its sole signatory.

Deception

3.Between 7 August and 9 September 2020, Madam So (PW1)  was deceived by an investment scam. She lost a total sum of $1,949,048, of which $83,690 was transferred to Account 1 on 8 September 2020.

Money laundering

Charge 1

4.Between 5 and 15 September 2020, Account 1 received 87 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $2,822,034 (of which $83,690 came from PW1).  A total sum of $2,822,034 was withdrawn by 52 transactions.  On 15 September 2020, Account 1 had a zero balance.  It had no further transactions afterwards.

5.On 9 May 2022, the defendant was arrested in relation to Account 1.  In his video recorded interview conducted on the same day, he admitted having opened Account 1 on Ah B's instructions in exchange for a $3,000 reward.  All credentials of Account 1 were given to Ah B.

The 2^nd bank account

6.On 30 January 2010, the defendant opened the bank account as particularized in Charges 2 to 4 (Account 2).  He was its sole signatory.

7.On 12 April 2021, the police conducted a search operation for a case unrelated to Account 1.  At a residential address with no known connection to the defendant ("the Location"), they found an opened envelope containing an ATM card (issued number 4)  for Account 2.  Inside the envelope, they also found a piece of paper with the following handwritten words:  "Ac: pigbaby9588", "ATM:279460", "PW:ZX232356" and "电话 56411011".

Charge 2

8.Between 2 January 2019 and 1 July 2020, Account 2 received 381 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $740,819.70.  A total sum of $734,396.22 was withdrawn by 306 transactions. On 1 July 2020, Account 2 had a balance of $6,425.50.

9.Records of Bank of China (Hong Kong)  Limited ("BOC")  in relation to Account 2 showed: (i)  on 13 December 2018, the defendant reported a new residential address; (ii)  on 22 June 2020, the defendant reported a new phone number 56411011 (the same phone number written on a piece of paper found in the envelope mentioned in paragraph 7 above); and (iii)  on 2 July 2020, the ATM card (issued number 4)  was reported lost.

Charge 3

10.Between 2 July and 24 October 2020, Account 2 received 1,672 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $2,185,261.01.  A total sum of $2,191,686 was withdrawn by 291 transactions. On 24 October 2020, Account 2 had a balance of $0.51.  It remained dormant until 7 May 2021.

11.Records of BOC in relation to Account 2 showed: (i)  on 24 August 2020, the defendant reported a new phone number 96708251 and an email address; (ii)  on 24 October 2020, in a "stop and search" operation, the police seized an ATM card (issued number 5)  from a person with no known connection to the defendant; and (iii)  on 24 October 2020, the ATM card (issued number 5)  was reported lost.

Charge 4

12.Between 7 May and 2 July 2021, Account 2 received 20 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $59,210.  A total sum of $59,210.52 was withdrawn by 41 transactions.  On 2 July 2021, Account 2 had a balance of $0.41.  It had no further transactions until it was closed by BOC on 30 July 2021.

13.Records of BOC in relation to Account 2 showed: (i)  on 5 May 2021, the defendant reported a new phone number 98323570; and (ii)  transactions resumed on 7 May 2021, after a dormant period since 25 October 2020.

14.On 16 October 2021, the defendant was arrested in relation to Account 2.  An ATM card (issued number 6)  for Account 2 was seized from him.  In his video recorded interview conducted on the same day, he claimed that he did not know why an ATM card for Account 2 was found at the Location.  He admitted sticking the password on the ATM cards for Account 2 and having lost his wallets containing the ATM cards 2 to 3 times.  He reported the lost cards to BoC.

15.The defendant's background and tax records (or the lack of them)  are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by Accounts 1 and 2.

16.The defendant now admits that during the respective offence periods, he (by himself in Charge 4), and together with persons unknown (in Charges 1 to 3), knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the respective funds held in Accounts 1 and 2, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with those funds.

Mitigation & Sentence

17.The defendant is 37 and has 11 prior convictions for multiple offences (mainly drug-related and gambling-related), none were related to "money laundering". Defence counsel Mr. Cheung informed me that the defendant resided with his mother. His most recent job was a casual transportation worker, which ended in mid-2024.

18.In mitigation, Mr. Cheung submitted that the defendant had no knowledge of any predicate offence related to this case. In Charge 1, he opened Account 1 upon someone's instructions in return for a reward. In Charges 2 to 4, he allowed others to use Account 2. Upon request, he also reported loss of ATM cards to obtain replacement cards. By pleading guilty to all 4 charges, the defendant accepted that he had reasonable grounds to believe that the funds which went through his 2 bank accounts were "black money". He has learned his lesson and promised not to re-offend.

19.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. Mr. Cheung did not object.

20.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]."

21.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 26 March 2026. I am satisfied that in 2020 and 2021, 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.

22.There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money laundering through bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" remains widespread in Hong Kong today. 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.

23.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 PW1, such a scam would have been meaningless without his bank account. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given his role, the total sums which went through his 2 accounts and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

24.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]

25.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.

26.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

27.I accept there is no evidence showing that: (i)  except the total sum of $83,690 from PW1, the funds received by Account 1 were related to any predicate offence; and (ii)  the defendant was involved in or had any knowledge of any predicate offence. As the sole owner of Account 1, the defendant should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

28.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of $2,822,034 went through Account 1 within a period of 10 days. By selling 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.

29.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 3.5 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 28 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 35 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

30.An aggregated sum of $740,819.70 went through Account 2 within a period of 6 months. I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 16 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 3

31.An aggregated sum of $2,185,261.01 went through Account 2 within a period of almost 4 months. 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 4

32.An aggregated sum of $59,210 went through Account 2 within a period of almost 2 months. I adopt a starting point of 12 months' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 8 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 10 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

33.The total sum received by the 2 bank accounts was $5.8 million odd. Bearing in mind the totality principle, 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. To achieve this, I order: the sentences for Charges 2 to 4 to run concurrently; and 5 months in Charges 2 to 4 to run consecutively to Charge 1.