HKSAR v. Chan Lok Him
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 1201/2024 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 5 December 2025.
1. The defendant is, upon his plea and agreement to Amended Summary of Facts, convicted of 3 charges 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.
Cites 3 cases
|
DCCC 1201/2024 [2025] HKDC 2090 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 1201 OF 2024 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.The defendant is, upon his plea and agreement to Amended Summary of Facts, convicted of 3 charges 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. Facts Predicate Offences 2.Between 24 March 2022 and 2 April 2022, four victims fell prey to investment/dating scams and transferred a total of HK$2,021,828 into the following accounts held under the defendant’s name:
Charge 1 - HSB Account 3.The HSB account was opened on 26 February 2022 under the defendant’s name for savings purpose. The defendant was reported to be unemployed. The account was closed by the bank on 19 October 2022 by the bank. 4.Between 24 March 2022 and 19 April 2022, there were 279 deposits totalling HK$11,092,819 and 254 withdrawals totalling HK$11,091,008.5. All the withdrawals were done by way of transfer. There was a balance of HK$1,810.5 in the account as at 19 April 2022. Charge 2 - BOC Account 5.The BOC account was opened on 25 March 2015 and the defendant was the sole account signatory. He was reported to be a student. His source of income was reported to be part-time salary and the telephone number of the defendant was updated on 1 April 2022. 6.Transaction records between 1 March 2022 and 31 May 2022 were obtained. It is noted that on 29 March 2022, there were HK$100 deposited into the account bringing the account balance to HK$100. On 19 April 2022, another HK$100 was deposited into the account and HK$70 was withdrawn from the account on the same day. 7.Between 19 April 2022 and 25 April 2022 (7 days), there were 98 deposits totalling HK$3,589,098.5 and 103 withdrawals totalling HK$3,589,198.5. The money was withdrawn shortly after they were deposited. Charge 3 - SCB Account 8.The SCB account was opened on 29 March 2022. The defendant claimed to be working as a retail sales/promoter, earning a monthly income of HK$15,000. 9.Between 29 March 2022 and 21 April 2022, there were 12 deposits totalling HK$680,562 and 8 withdrawals totalling HK$680,420. All the deposits were dissipated on the same day. Arrest of the defendant 10.The defendant was later arrested on 4 days, ie 12 December 2022, 2 February 2023, 29 November 2023 and 29 January 2024. 11.In the cautioned video-recorded interviews, the defendant claimed that he did not receive any reward for committing Charge 1. He refused to disclose further details of Charge 3 when he was asked whether he had lent the SCB account to others. He refused to answer any other questions in relation to the BOC account in Charge 2. 12.The defendant did not file any tax return for the financial year 2020/2021 and 2021/2022. Criminal record 13.Defendant has a clear record. Mitigation 14.The defendant is aged 28, single. He has received education up to Form 6 level and was a part-time warehouse worker at the time of the offence, earning HK$10,000 a month. His mother has retired because of health conditions. The defendant was living together with his mother and his younger brother, whilst he has a half-sister living apart. 15.It was said that the defendant was unemployed for some time at the material times and he was lured by others to let them use his 3 bank accounts. It was also said that no reward was mentioned, and in this case, he received no reward at all. 16.Defence counsel lodged mitigation letters from the defendant himself, as well as members of family, including his mother. In gist, the defendant expressed his remorse whilst his family members confirmed that he is filial son and a caring brother. His ex-employer also found him to be a responsible person. 17.Defence counsel conceded that there is no sentencing guideline for this offence, though immediate custodial sentence is the norm. He referred this court to the Court of Appeal case HKSAR v Boma[2012] 2 HKLRD 33, in which the court identified significant features in the sentencing exercise. 18.Defence counsel also submitted that the predicate offence in this case is one of investment fraud and there is no evidence that the defendant had knowledge of the nature of the predicate offence or he had knowledge that the funds were proceeds of an indictable offence. It was also submitted that no international element or organised crime syndicate was involved in this case. 19.Defence counsel conceded this case involved numerous transactions, a substantive sum of over HK$15 million, and was committed over a period of around 2 months. 20.He submitted that the defendant had no participation in the predicate offence itself, he was only being reckless as to allow others to use his bank account for illegal purpose. 21.It is submitted that whilst there is no sentence guideline for the offence, the case of Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 did make reference to the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536, where Cheung JA (as he then was) set out the starting point for cases where the “black money” involved is between $1 and $2 million, between $3 million and $6 million, and those over $10 million. 22.It is also submitted that although the predicate offence in the present case is comparatively more serious than the one in Wan Kwok Keung and the total amount of “black money” involved was higher, the sentence starting point of not more than 5 years is appropriate. 23.In this case, prosecution has applied for enhancement of sentence pursuant to section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455. Defence has no objection to the application, but it is submitted that in the circumstances of this case, having regard to the role of the defendant, which belongs to the lowest in the hierarchy, an enhancement of 20% is appropriate. Discussion 24.Before sentencing, the court has considered all that was said on behalf of the defendant in mitigation, as well as the mitigation letters lodged. 25.On conviction upon indictment of this offence, a person is liable to a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for 14 years. 26.In the case of Boma, Stock JA (as he then was) was explaining that it was not realistically possible or desirable to lay down guidelines in relation to the offence of money laundering because of the highly variable circumstances in which these offences were committed, and the widely different roles played by those convicted of these offences. He said that deterrence was paramount in the sentencing exercise as the criminality in laundering arose from the encouragement and nourishment that it gives to crime in general. 27.He said that the amount of money laundered is a significant factor, and the court should take into account of factors such as:
28.In this case, the predicate offence for part of the money deposited into each of these three bank accounts referred to in Charge 1, 2 and 3 was investment/dating scams, ie, fraud, for which upon conviction on indictment, a person is liable to imprisonment for 14 years, or obtaining property by deception, for which a person upon conviction on indictment might be liable to imprisonment for 10 years. 29.There is no evidence before this court that the defendant has knowledge of the predicate offence. However, the date of opening of the bank accounts in question, in particular the HSB Account and the SCB Account, was very close to the date when the victims were scammed or defrauded. 30.There is no evidence of international element involved, and from what was before this court, the bank accounts were clearly planned for laundering of the proceeds of indictable offences. Considering the operation of the investment/dating scams, and the amount of money laundered in this case, criminal syndicate were involved. 31.The defendant committed the 1st charge offence over 27 days, the 2nd charge offence over 7 days, and the 3rd charge offence over 24 days. The 3 offences were committed over a period of 33 days. 32.According to Amended Summary of Facts, the number of transactions involved for the 1st charge offence were 279 deposits and 254 withdrawals, involving over HK$11 million. For the 2nd charge offence, 98 deposits and 103 withdrawals, involving over HK$3.5 million. For the 3rd charge offence, 12 deposits and 8 withdrawals, involving HK$0.68 million. The withdrawals in these 3 accounts were all made within short period of time of the deposits. 33.Evidence before this court limits the role of the offender here to merely lending the relevant bank accounts for use by others. The defendant stated that he did not receive any reward. This court was of the view that whilst the defendant might have not received any benefit as a result of the commission of the 3 offences, he must have initially agreed to lend his 3 bank accounts for a reward. 34.In the case of Wan Kwok Keung, Yeung JA (as he then was) said that money laundering is a serious offence and must be deterred. In considering the sentence, the emphasis should be on the amount of “black money” laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant. Paragraph 13 of the judgment stated:
35.In that case, the Court of Appeal referred to the case of Hsu Yu Yi, where the sentencing starting point for laundering money between $1 million and $2 million is 3 years, between $3 million and $6 million is 4 years; and could be over 5 years laundering money is above $10 million. 36.Considering the factors aforesaid and the circumstances of the present offences, in particular the amount of money involved, the number of victims involved (which is four in this case), the number of transactions, the period within which the offences were committed and the role of the defendant, the court finds that appropriate sentencing starting point would be 4 years and 6 months for Charge 1, 3 years and 6 months for Charge 2, and 18 months for Charge 3. 37.It is well established that money laundering is a serious offence and personal background of the defendant is seldom a valid mitigating factor. Immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentencing option. 38.The defendant has pleaded guilty and is therefore entitled to one-third sentencing discount. He is sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1, 28 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2, and 12 months’ imprisonment for Charge 3. Enhancement of sentence 39.The prosecution has applied for enhancement of sentence pursuant to section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, on the grounds of prevalence of the use of stooge account in the commission of these specific offences and the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of these specified offences. In support of the application, there is a statement of Chief Inspector Li Yiu-nam dated 27 November 2025 lodged with the court. Defence has no objection to the application. 40.According to this statement:
41.Although the figure appears to have fallen for the first 10 months of 2025, statistically, the same could not be interpreted as a falling trend as it involved only 10 months. In any event, the note to Table B stated that but for a deception case reported in July 2025 which involved HK$1.06 billion, the amount relating to stooge account would then represent 56.84% of the total. The use of stooge account is clearly still very prevalent in deception and money laundering cases. 42.Having considered the statement of Chief Inspector Li, including the tables and the notes to the tables, the court is satisfied that the grounds of application for enhancement has been made out by the prosecution. This court finds that enhancement of sentence at 25% is appropriate. 43.Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to 45 months’ imprisonment for Charge 1, 35 months’ imprisonment for Charge 2, and 15 months’ imprisonment for Charge 3. Totality principle 44.The 3 offences are identical in nature. In essence, the defendant committed money laundering using his 3 bank accounts over the period from 24 March 2022 to 25 April 2022, involving a total of HK$15,362,479.5. 45.Having regard to the overall culpability of the defendant, in particular the total amount of money laundered, and referring to the case of Hsu Yu Yi, the court finds that the total sentence (after plea and enhancement) of 50 months’ imprisonment just and appropriate in this case. Accordingly, 5 months of the sentence for Charge 2 is to run consecutively to the sentence for Charge 1. The sentence for Charge 3 is to run totally concurrent with the sentence for Charges 1 and 2. 46.The defendant is therefore sentenced to a total of 50 months’ imprisonment in this case.
|