HKSAR v. Du Yuanyuan

DCCC 763/2025

[2026] HKDC 1040

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 763 OF 2025

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Money laundering". In short, she "lent" her bank accounts to someone.

Summary of Facts

2.On 18 and 20 March 2024 respectively, the defendant opened the bank accounts as particularized in Charges 1 and 2 (CMB Account and SCB Account).  The CMB Account has a dual currency element (HKD and USD).  The SCB Account also has a multi-currency element (including HKD, USD, AUD, EUR and CAD).

Deception

3.Between April and July 2024, PWs 1 to 7 were deceived by different scams (including investment, discount coupon offers and impersonating officials).  Of the 7 victims, 4 were Hong Kong residents and 3 were residing in Taiwan, Australia and India respectively.  They were lured to make payments to the CMB Account and SCB Account, which aggregated to 2 respective sums of USD1,039,149 and HKD127,500.

Money laundering

Charge 1

4.Between 22 April and 17 June 2024, the CMB Account received 10 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of USD1,499,652 (of which a total sum of USD1,039,149 came from PWs 5 to 7).  Except a sum of USD1.50, which was withdrawn by cashier order on 17 June 2024, nearly all deposits were converted into HKD and withdrawn by transfer on the day when the funds were received.  On 17 June 2024, the CMB Account had a zero balance in both HKD and USD.

Charge 2

5.Between 21 May and 23 July 2024, the SCB Account received 16 deposits in foreign currencies, which aggregated to 4 sums of USD206,241, EUR17,014, AUD10,020 and CAD3,000.  Except a sum of USD103,942, which was withdrawn by cheque on 19 July 2024, all deposits were converted into HKD and withdrawn by transfer on the day when the funds were received.

6.Between 21 May and 2 August 2024, the SCB Account received 29 deposits in local currency (from third parties), which aggregated to a sum of HKD631,201.20 (of which a total sum of HKD127,500 came from PWs 1 to 4).  An aggregated sum of HKD1,637,244 was withdrawn by 41 transactions.

7.On 2 August 2024, the SCB Account had the respective balances of HKD636.44, USD1.73, AUD0.00, EUR0.70 and CAD0.00.

8.Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals, as well as the daily balances of the CMB Account and SCB Account, the police found typical features of money laundering.

Arrest

9.The defendant was arrested on 7 January 2025 when she entered Hong Kong at Hong Kong Zhuhai Macao Bridge.

Other evidence

10.According to the Immigration Department, the defendant first came to Hong Kong on 18 March 2024 and departed on 22 March 2024.  There is no record of her entering Hong Kong again until she was arrested on 7 January 2025.

Mitigation & Sentence

11.The defendant is 41 and has a clear record. She resides in Shandong Province with her parents and son (aged 11). Defence counsel Mr. Boyton informed me that the defendant is separated. Her husband has left her for more than 10 years. The defendant is a Nursing graduate, but did not take up the profession. Her son has Asperger's Disorder and her parents suffer from the usual elderly diseases. The defendant also has non-malignant conditions related to her breasts, which require regular monitoring. In mitigation, Mr. Boyton clarified that the defendant had lent both the CMB Account and SCB Account to someone. She had reasonable grounds to believe that both accounts would be used for illegal purposes, but had no knowledge of the predicate offences involved.

12.The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant to section 27(2)(c), (d) and (e) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap.455) on the basis of prevalence; the nature and extent of harm caused to the community; and the nature and extent of the total benefit accruing to any person. Mr. Boyton did not object.

13.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]."

14.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 20 May 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.

15.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.

16.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 1-7, such scams would have been meaningless without her bank accounts. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given her role, the total sums which went through her 2 accounts and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.
17.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]
18.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 her personal circumstances.
19.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
20.I accept there is no evidence showing that the defendant had knowledge of or was involved in any predicate offence (including the scams which involved PWs 5 to 7). As the sole owner of the CMB Account, she should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.
21.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of USD1,499,652 (equivalent to approximately HKD11.7 million)went through the CMB Account within a period of 3 months, of which USD1,039,149 came from PWs 5 to 7. By lending her bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through the CMB Account, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.
22.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 40 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 50 months' imprisonment for this charge.
Charge 2
23.An aggregated sum of equivalent to HKD2.45 million odd went through the SCB Account within a period of 4.5 months, of which HKD127,500 came from PWs 1 to 4. I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment[5]. 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
24.The grand total received by the CMB Account and SCB Account was roughly HKD14 million. I consider a global starting point of 5.5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas,
the overall sentence is reduced to 44 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 55 months. Hence, I order 5 months in Charge 2 to run consecutively to Charge 1.