HKSAR v. Mai Zhenpeng

DCCC 1268/2025

[2026] HKDC 1053

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1268 OF 2025

----------------------------

----------------------------

-----------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

-----------------------------------------

Charges

1.The Defendant is charged with two counts of “Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.

2.The Defendant pleads guilty to the two charges.

Facts

3.PW1-2 fell victim to an online investment scam and a law enforcement agency imposter scam.  The fraudsters lured them into remitting various sums to different bank accounts, including the Defendant's Chiyu Bank and ICBC accounts.  They later reported the cases to the police.

4.Investigation revealed that the two accounts were involved in some money laundering transactions as follows.

Charge 1 - Chiyu Account

5.It was opened by the Defendant on 11 February 2022, he was the sole owner and signatory.  He declared himself to be a cleaner with a monthly income in the range of HK$10,001 to HK$25,000.  Between 1 and 27 May 2022, there were 47 deposits of HK$1,372,595.33 in total and 107 withdrawals of HK$1,372,604.03 in total.

Charge 2 - ICBC Account

6.It was opened by the Defendant on 24 May 2022, he was the sole owner and signatory.  He declared himself to be a renovation worker but did not provide his monthly income level.  Between 24 May and 6 June 2022, there were 7 deposits of HK$725,236.19 in total and 3 deposits of US$42,799.60 (about HK$333,836.88[1]) in total and 8 withdrawals of HK$724,833.92 in total, and 2 withdrawals of US$42,790 in total (about HK$333,762[2]).

7.On 5 December 2022, the Defendant was arrested in relation to the ICBC Account. Under caution, he claimed that he was a renovation worker with a monthly income of HK$30,000.  He admitted lending his account to a woman called “Ah Yu” whom he met on Facebook.

8.On 13 November 2024, the Defendant was arrested in relation to the Chiyu Account.

Enhancement of Sentence

9.The Prosecution applies for enhancement of sentence and furnishes the Court a witness statement of Chief Inspector Li Yiu-nam to explain the prevalence of the use of stooge accounts in the commission of money laundering and the nature and extent of harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of such offence.  The Defence does not oppose such an application.

Background of the Defendant

10.The Defendant was a renovation worker.  He was first arrested on 5 December 2022 and charged on 4 August 2025.  He had one similar conviction in DCCC 734/2024 on 13 June 2025 and was sentenced to 39 months' imprisonment.  The current case was committed whilst he jumped bail of his previous conviction.

Mitigation

11.The Defence refers to HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 549 and HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 for factors relevant to sentencing.

12.The Defence submits that the Defendant’s role and participation were not the most serious and were low-level.  The amount of money involved was not the worst of its kind in such offences.  He lent out his ICBC account to others.  There is no evidence to suggest that the Defendant had knowledge of the predicate offences.  The length of time the offences spanned was less than a month for Charge 1 and 2 weeks for Charge 2.  The commission of the offences was relatively unsophisticated.  The Defendant did not receive any financial gains.

13.The Defence invites the Court to consider granting the Defendant a discount as a result of the undue delay brought in his prosecution for Charge 2, and cites HKSAR v Tse Pui-yi Flora [2025] HKDC 2128 and HKSAR v Fu Sze Man  [2025] HKDC 2089 in support.

14.The Defence admits that the Defendant committed this case whilst he jumped bail of his previous conviction.

15.The Defendant submits a mitigation letter, expressing his remorse.

Sentence

16.Money laundering is a serious offence, punishable by up to 14 years’ imprisonment upon conviction.  While the Court of Appeal has not laid down any sentencing guidelines for this offence, it has repeatedly emphasised that sentencing has to be deterrent.  The case of HKSAR v Chan Wai Yan [2012] 4 HKLRD 195 points out that money laundering is a serious offence as those who take part in laundering the money not only assist in dealing with and retaining the proceeds of illegal activities and attempt to legitimise the proceeds of criminal activities, but in effect also indirectly encourage criminal activities.  It is therefore necessary to deter money laundering offences.

17.Hsu Yu Yi and Boma outline factors that the Court has to consider in sentencing.  In the case of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, after the Court of Appeal has reviewed a number of money laundering cases, it is pointed out that the sentencing starting point is 3 years or so where the black money involved is between 1 million and 2 million dollars, 4 years or so where it is between 3 million and 6 million dollars, and could be over 5 years where it is above 10 million dollars.  In the case of Secretary for Justice v Xie Zhijian [2025] HKCA 911, the Court of Appeal pointed out that these figures are only general references and not sentencing guidelines.

18.The amount involved is a major consideration. In this case, the total amount of proceeds involved in the two charges is over HK$2.4 million. Charges 1 and 2 lasted for about 4 weeks and 2 weeks respectively. The Defendant's two accounts had multiple deposits and withdrawals within a short period, with all or most of the deposited proceeds being withdrawn. This reflects that although the period involved was relatively short, the transactions were frequent, the amount involved was not small, and the relevant accounts were used intensively for rapid disposal of the proceeds of crime, demonstrating the serious nature of the case.

19.Some of the proceeds originated from fraud cases involving the two prosecution witnesses. These predicate offences were fraud targeting the public and pose a high degree of social harm. The case of HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai CACC 100/2014 states that “the Court would impose a more serious sentence on unscrupulous, despicable, and disgraceful fraud cases targeting the public, such as street scams and telephone scams, to deter such offences and prevent innocent people from becoming victims”[3].

20.The Defendant’s involvement in Charge 1 was dealing with the proceeds in his own account and Charge 2 was lending his account to “Ah Yu” for money laundering. Although there is no evidence in this case showing that the Defendant knew the nature of the predicate offences or received financial gains, his participation in this case enabled the smooth operation of the entire fraud and/or money laundering schemes, he was an indispensable part of the crime.

21.The Court agrees that there is no evidence showing that this case has any international element, or was a sophisticated offence, or committed by or on behalf of an organised criminal syndicate, or that the Defendant was the director of the laundering operation or scheme. However, these circumstances only indicate that there are no such aggravating factors, but do not constitute grounds for mitigation.

22.Another aggravating feature in this case is that the Defendant has a similar conviction record and he committed this case while he was on bail for that previous conviction.

23.In HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKC 231, the Court of Appeal has clearly stated that other than in exceptional circumstances, the remorse of a defendant who pleads guilty is taken to be subsumed in the discount of one-third afforded for a plea of guilty.

24.The Defence raises the complaint of undue delay in prosecution about Charge 2. There was a gap of around 2 years and 8 months from the time the Defendant was arrested for Charge 2 and he was being charged for it in the end. A chronology of events was produced and the Prosecution made further submissions explaining the events. It is submitted that the police arrested the Defendant and 3 other persons for Charge 2 in December 2022. Since then, the police started an investigation of the case by conducting a fund flow analysis against the 4 arrested persons, including the Defendant. Legal advice was sought and as a result of that, the police conducted further investigation in relation to cross transactions among the said arrested persons and ascertained the outstanding cases of the Defendant. As a matter of fact, the Defendant was indeed involved in at least 2 other money laundering offences at around that period of time, and they were Charge 1 of this case, as well as DCCC 734/2024.

25.At a certain stage, about 1.5 years after the Defendant’s arrest for Charge 2, legal advice was ready and it was suggested to try Charge 2 in the Magistrates’ Courts. The police then intended to bring this case up together with DCCC 734/2024 in the interest of the Defendant. Such a position was changed after the Defendant was then arrested for Charge 1 in November 2024, when the advising counsel opined that Charge 2 did not need to be consolidated with DCCC 734/2024, but should wait for the investigation of Charge 1 instead. The investigation was completed and legal advice on Charge 1 was ready in June 2025. At last, the Defendant was charged with Charges 1 and 2 in this case in August 2025.

26.HKSAR v Chiu Chi Wing CACC 243/2012 applied Scook v The Queen [2008] 185 A Criminal Review 164 and identified the factors as being relevant to delay as a mitigating factor for sentence. It is recognised that delay is not, of itself, a mitigating factor. Delay will not ordinarily be a mitigating factor if it has been caused by difficulties in detecting, investigating, or proving the offences committed by the offender, and the period of the delay is reasonable in the circumstances.

27.I do not see any unreasonable lapses of time between the Defendant’s arrest and the eventual charging of Charge 2. Money laundering is widely known to be a prevalent offence and it continues to drain on the resources of both the police and the banks in dealing with such suspected offences. It would take substantial time for the police to collect documents, including bank opening documents, bank transaction records, and tax returns etc. Those documents have to be analysed after they become available. The situation in this case was further complicated by having multiple arrested persons and multiple offences committed by the Defendant during that period of time. Given the background of this case and the Defendant, the overall time taken was not overly long in all the circumstances. I do not find that there was undue or unreasonable delay.

28.Further, the Defendant was not making progress towards rehabilitation at all during the relevant period, as he spent most of the time jumping bail of DCCC 734/2024.

29.In any event, the District Court cases cited by the Defence are not binding on this Court.

30.Apart from a timely guilty plea, this Court sees no exceptional circumstances or further mitigating factors for further reduction in sentence.

31.Based on the above analysis, the Court finds that an appropriate starting point for each charge is 30 months' imprisonment. The sentence for each charge is discounted by one-third to 20 months’ imprisonment by reason of the Defendant's timely guilty plea.

32.Chief Inspector Li's statement indicates that the cases that involved the use of stooges for money laundering purposes remain prominent and threaten the anti-money laundering regime in Hong Kong. Although the number of detected deception and money laundering cases and the amount involved in such cases have decreased in recent years, the situation remains serious. There was a rising trend in the use of stooges for money laundering from 31.38% in 2020 to 75.10% in 2024. The amount of reported monetary losses and proceeds laundered has been very significant in detected deception and money laundering cases, and it was over HK$7,000 million in 2025. Since 2022, over 72% of such losses and laundered proceeds have involved the use of stooge accounts comparing the annual totals. These figures demonstrate that such offences remain prevalent and cause serious harm to the community. The sentence must have a proper deterrent effect. Therefore, the Court accepts the Prosecution's application for enhancement of sentence.

33.In light of the foregoing, the Court finds an enhancement of 25% appropriate. Therefore, the sentence for each charge is increased to 25 months.

34.Although the two charges in this case are similar in nature, the situation of how money laundering was conducted differs. Therefore, part of the sentence must be served consecutively. Considering the totality principle, 7 months of the sentence for Charge 2 shall run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1. The Defendant is therefore sentenced to a total of 32 months’ imprisonment for this case.

35.DCCC 734/2024 and this case are similar in nature, but they are separate cases involving different offences. Considering the totality principle, if both sets of sentences are served entirely consecutively to each other, the total sentence would be excessively long, while serving them all concurrently would fail to reflect the overall severity of the two cases. I find that part of the sentence in this case shall be served consecutively to the sentence in DCCC 734/2024. Thus, I order that 9 months of the sentence in this case shall be served consecutively to the 39 months’ imprisonment in DCCC 734/2024, with the remaining sentence to be served concurrently.

36.The Defendant is therefore sentenced to a total of 48 months’ imprisonment for DCCC 734/2024 and this case.