HKSAR v. Sri-wahyuni-bt-marjuki-sentono

DCCC 1390/2024

[2026] HKDC 1012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1390 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of “Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1)  and (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455.

2.The Prosecution’s case is that the Defendant together with an unknown person, laundered $5,901,391.14 with the Defendant’s bank account with the MOX Bank Limited, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that those funds are the proceeds of an indictable offence.

Summary of Facts

3.The Re-Amended Summary of Facts admitted by the Defendant are as follows:

Bank account held by the Defendant

(1)  The Defendant is an Indonesian female who worked as a foreign domestic helper in Hong Kong.

(2)  At all material times, the Defendant was the account holder and sole signatory of an account held with MOX Bank Limited, numbered 749-03811540 (the MOX Account).

(3)  The MOX Account was opened on 4 June 2023 by the Defendant via mobile account opening channel. The opening mandate of the account had recorded the Defendant’s Hong Kong Identity Card copy and the Defendant’s self-portrait photo. It was stated in the opening mandate that the purpose of opening the account was for savings. The registered mobile number recorded in the opening mandate was 6875 3176 and there was no record of change.

The predicate offences

(4)  In July 2023, PW1 and PW2 fell prey to online scams. PW1 and PW2 were induced to deposit monies into the MOX Account.

(5)  On 26 July 2023, PW1 found a job recruitment via Facebook and was asked to complete three transactions to receive a reward. One of the transactions was a transferral of HK$8,500.16 to the MOX Account on 31 July 2023.

(6)  In July 2023, PW2 was asked to open a cryptocurrency account by a casual friend who was indebted to him. The friend promised to transfer the outstanding debt to PW2’s cryptocurrency account. On 27 July 2023, PW2 transferred HK$3,000 to the MOX Account as a guarantee fee for making the transfer.

Arrest and caution

(7)  On 26 May 2024, the Defendant was arrested. Upon arrest and under caution, the Defendant remained silent.

Fund Flow Analysis

(8)  Fund Flow Analysis of the MOX Account between 4 June 2023 and 14 September 2023 showed that there were 6,562 deposits in the total amount of HK$5,901,391.14 with corresponding 355 withdrawals in the total amount of HK$5,895,592.71. The remaining balance of the MOX Account was HK$5,798.43 on 14 September 2023.

(9)  Most of the funds were withdrawn shortly after deposit, mostly within the same day of deposit in similar amount. Typical mirror patterns observed, indicating the account was used as a temporary repository of funds.

Other Investigations

(10)  The Defendant owned no known property in Hong Kong. The amount of money transacted in the MOX Account at the material time was incommensurate with her financial means.

(11)  The subscriber check of telephone number 6875 3176 resulted with no record found. The said telephone number was not seized from the Defendant.

Conclusion

(12)  The prosecution accepts that:

(i)  There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant was the user of the said telephone number; and

(ii)  The Defendant was being used as a stooge.

(13)  At the material time, the Defendant, together with an unknown person, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property namely the total sum of HK$5,901,391.14 in the MOX Account, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

The Defendant’s Background

4.The Defendant was born in Indonesia and is now 44 years old. She received High School education in Indonesia.  She is married.  Her husband works as a hawker selling pastries.  They have 2 daughters aged 19 and 22.

5.The Defendant came to Hong Kong to work as a foreign domestic helper in 2011 to supplement the family income and pay for her daughters’ education. She was still working as a domestic helper at the time of the offence.

6.The Defendant has a clear record.

Principles

7.Money laundering is a serious offence.  On indictment, the maximum sentence is a fine of $5,000,000 and imprisonment for 14 years. Not only does money laundering encourage criminal activities indirectly, it also attempts to legitimize the proceeds of crime.  In order to crack down on serious crimes and to prevent offenders from obtaining financial gains, it is necessary to impose a deterrent sentence: HKSAR v Javid Kamran (CACC 400/2004); HKSAR v Xu Xia Li and another [2004] 4 HKC 16; Secretary for Justice v WAN Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201.

8.There are no sentencing guidelines.  However, subject only to exceptional circumstances, an immediate custodial sentence is appropriate for deterrence, even for a first offender: Secretary for Justice v Siu Yun-yee [2017] 3 HKC 454.

9.Generally, the sentence should mainly reflect the amount of “black money” laundered.  The benefit to the Defendant or the lack thereof is irrelevant.That is because it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most cases, even the predicate offence is unknown. If there were information to prove that the “black money” originated from very serious crimes, such as drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking and other organized crimes or the Defendant’s benefit was huge, the sentence should be adjusted upward: Wan Kwok Keung (ibid).

10.The amount laundered is not the be-all and end-all of a case but is a significant feature: HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. The Court of Appeal has, in a number of cases, listed other factors relevant to sentence.  These include the nature of the predicate offence (if known); the Defendant’s knowledge of the nature of the predicate offence; whether there was an international dimension; whether the offence was committed on behalf of a criminal syndicate; the number of offences, the length of time the offence(s)  lasted, the number of transactions involved, the Defendant’s role, the degree of organization and sophistication of the offence and whether the Defendant continued to launder the money after he discovered the nature of the money laundering offence. If the Defendant is a drug addict or petty crook who is paid a small sum to open an account and hand over its operation to another with no more participation and no more knowledge than that it is going to be used for some sort of crime, he is much less culpable than an offender of a different sort not used in that way: Boma (ibid).

11.In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536, Cheung JA set out the amounts of money involved and the sentences passed in a number of money laundering cases.  The starting point is 3 years for amounts between HK$1,000,000 and HK$2,000,000; 4 years or so where the amounts are between HK$3,000,000 and HK$6,000,000 and could be over 5 years where the amount is over HK$10,000,000 (See also Wan Kwok Keung (ibid).

Discussions

12.Counsel explained that in May 2023, the Defendant met a domestic helper called Chamu in Prince Edward Road Garden on her day off.  They became good friends.  Chamu told the Defendant that the Defendant could earn HK$900 if the Defendant opened an internet account for Chamu as Chamu was unable to open one herself.  No reason was given.  The Defendant wanted to help her friend and make a little extra money to support her daughters.  She opened the MOX account and gave the account number and password to Chamu. The Defendant never heard from Chamu again and has no means to contact her.  The Defendant never used the MOX account or received any benefits from it.  She did not even receive the promised HK$900.

13.Counsel submitted that the Defendant was a naive person who was not well-educated.  She was easily influenced by others.  The Defendant admits that she wanted to help her friend and earn extra money.  Counsel submitted that the Defendant was one of the most vulnerable in society who was used to open the account.

14.The Defendant’s version of events does not make sense.  On the one hand, she asserted that she and Chamu became good friends.  Yet she alleges that she has no means to contact Chamu.  Most domestic helpers only earn about $4,000 per month.  It is difficult to believe that Chamu would pay the Defendant HK$900 for opening the account.  The Defendant’s version must have revealed that it was very simple to open an internet bank account.  There was no reason for her to believe Chamu. In the updated mitigation, the Defendant accepted that she had reasonable grounds to believe that that the account was being used for criminal activities but she did not know the nature of those activities.

15.The following factors are relevant to sentence:

(1)  the amount involved is very substantial (just under HK$6,000,000);

(2)  There were numerous transactions (6,562 deposits and 355 withdrawals);

(3)  Part of the funds deposited came from scams;

(4)  The offence lasted for over 3 months;

(5)  The Defendant opened the account. There is no evidence that the Defendant had any further dealings with the account after it was opened;

(6)  There is no evidence to suggest that the Defendant took part in the scams or had knowledge of the nature of the predicate offence;

(7)  This was a very simple money laundering exercise;

(8)  There is no evidence of any international element;

(9)  The only other person alleged to be involved in the money laundering is Chamu.

16.Counsel submitted that in those circumstances, the appropriate starting point is 4 to 4 ½ years imprisonment.  In my judgment, after considering the facts of the case and the Defendant’s role, the appropriate starting point is 4 years’ imprisonment (48 months)

Mitigation

17.The Defendant has pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. She is entitled to a one-third discount.  The sentence is reduced to 32 months. 

18.Counsel submitted that the Defendant is very remorseful.  The Defendant was one of the breadwinners of the family but the conviction means that the Defendant will no longer be able to support her family by working as a domestic helper here.  It will be very difficult for the Defendant to find reasonable employment.

19.In HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKC 231, the Court of Appeal clearly explained that the discount for a guilty plea is the high watermark.  It encompasses a clear record, remorse and all other mitigating factors; there should be no further discount save in exceptional circumstances.

20.It is trite law that the effect of the sentence on the Defendant’s family is not a mitigating factor. I understand that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, for the Defendant to gain employment as a domestic helper in Hong Kong after her conviction.  However, she is the author of her own wrong. In short, apart from her guilty plea, there are no other mitigating factors.

Enhancement

21.The Prosecution is applying for an enhancement of sentence under the section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.

22.Chief Inspector Li’s statement set out the statistics of cases where stooges are used to open bank accounts for money laundering.  In 2024, there were 47,063 cases of deception and stooge cases (i.e. an average of almost 3,922 cases per month). In 2025, there were 47,701 cases (i.e. an average of 3,975 cases per month).  In January-April 2026, there were 14584 cases (i.e. an average of 3,646 cases per month). In 2025, the number of stooges arrested was 5355 (i.e. an average of 446 cases per month).  In January-April 2026, the number of stooges arrested was 2001 (i.e. an average of 500 cases per month).  These cases are clearly prevalent and on an upward trend.

23.According to Chief Inspector Li, the anti-money laundering regime in Hong Kong is hampered by the prevalence of stooge accounts for money laundering:

(1)  The prevalence of stooge accounts interferes with the normal operation of the banking system, having a negative effect on the reputation of Hong Kong as a well-known international financial hub;

(2)  The prevalence of stooge accounts forms multiple layers of “shields” concealing the identity of the masterminds behind, making it difficult, if not impossible, for police to identify the masterminds behind;

(3)  The prevalence of stooge accounts substantially facilitates the commission of crimes and in turn leads to more crimes being committed, as the mastermind could easily get away from their criminal liability;

(4)  The prevalence of stooge accounts makes money laundering easier, which allows culprits to make use of their ill-gotten gains to extend their sphere to engage in a wider range of illegal activities;

(5)  The prevalence of stooge accounts means that law enforcement agencies have to put in more investigation efforts and resources; and

(6)  People with low income or less awareness of the consequences of selling their bank accounts are more likely to be hired by the culprits to take the risks of commission of crimes to surrender their accounts for monetary reward.

24.The Defence accepts the enhancement.  The only issue is the level of enhancement.  Counsel submitted that an enhancement of about 25% would be appropriate bearing in mind the Defendant’s role and the facts of the case, i.e. it did not involve triads or people smuggling or the use of force to recover money: HKSAR v Tam Wai Pio (1998)  2 HKLRD 949; HKSAR v Ma Suet Chun & Others (2001)  4 HKC 337 and HKSAR v Lee Sai Wing (1998)  4 HKC 280 which deals with false entries in bank records where the Court of Appeal took the view that the appropriate enhancement would be 25% - 30%.

25.The facts in those cases are very different from the present case. In 律政司司長 對 谢志建 [2025] HKCA 911, the Defendant pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering.  He opened a company bank account to launder funds.  The Prosecution argued that the level of enhancement could be as high as one-third.  The Court of Appeal made no comment about the Deputy District Court Judge’s enhancement by 20%.

26.In those circumstances, this court will also enhance the sentence by 20% (38.4 months).  The sentence is therefore rounded down to 38 months.