HKSAR v. Tsoi Hiu Tung

DCCC 841/2025

[2026] HKDC 938

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 841 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant was convicted on his own plea and agreement to Summary of Facts of 3 charges:

(a)  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 (Charge 1);

(b)  Making counterfeit notes, contrary to section 98(2)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 (Charge 2); and

(c)  Attempting to make counterfeit notes, contrary to section 98(2)  and 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200 (Charge 3).

Facts

2.At all material times, the defendant was the account holder and sole authorised signatory of the bank account with Standard Chartered Bank (Hong Kong)  Limited, account number 57086449091 (“Account 1”), opened on 4 March 2020.  He claimed in the opening mandate that he worked as a supervisor earning HK$20,000 per month.

3.Bank documents of Account 1 showed that between 26 August 2021 and 29 November 2021, there were 150 deposits (HK$938,814.3)  and 505 withdrawals (HK$938,050.3). In this period, apparent money laundering hallmarks were observed, including large number of unknown individual counterparties, frequent deposits of larger amounts in the region of over HK$10,000, and on some occasion, over HK$100,000.

4.Inland Revenue Department records show that between 2017 and 2022, the defendant only reported to have held a business called “7 Hotel” between July 2018 and December 2020, and the defendant had only filed tax returns for 7 Hotel in 2019/20 (HK$150,000)  and in 2020/21 (HK$216,667).

5.On 25 March 2022, police executed a search warrant against the defendant’s residence at Locwood Court in Tin Shui Wai.  Upon house search, the following items were found and seized:

In the defendant’s cross-shoulder bag found in his bedroom

(a)  2 bank cards (account held under the defendant);

(b)  2 purported $500 denomination Hong Kong currency banknotes (2018 series)  (issued by The Bank of China (Hong Kong)  Limited (“BOC”)  with serial number BM974347, both sides printed with images)  (“Exhibit 1”);

(c)  1 purported $500 denomination Hong Kong currency banknote (2018 series)  (issued by BOC with serial number BM974341, both sides printed with images)  (“Exhibit 2”).

On a table in the defendant’s bedroom

(d)  4 mobile phones;

(e)  an Apple MacBook Pro laptop;

(f)  a Canon printer;

(g)  some stationery, including A4 size papers, cutter, a metallic brush pen, a color dispenser bottle and a ruler.

In a folder found in the drawer of the table in the defendant’s bedroom

(h)  6 purported $500 denomination Hong Kong currency banknotes (2018 series)  (issued by BOC with serial number BM974341, both sides printed with images)  (“Exhibit 3”);

(i)  2 purported $500 denomination Hong Kong currency banknotes (2018 series)  (issued by BOC with serial number BM974347, both sides printed with images)  (“Exhibit 4”);

(j)  3 purported $500 denomination Hong Kong currency banknotes (2018 series)  (issued by BOC with serial number BM974394, both sides printed with images)  (“Exhibit 5”);

(k)  2 purported $500 denomination Hong Kong currency banknotes (2018 series)  (issued by BOC with serial number BM974397, both sides printed with images)  (“Exhibit 6”);

(l)  1 purported $500 denomination Hong Kong currency banknotes (2018 series)  (issued by BOC with serial number BM974377, both sides printed with images)  (“Exhibit 7”);

(m)  2 pieces of paper, each of which was printed with 3 purported $500 denomination Hong Kong currency banknotes (2018 series)  (issued by BOC with serial numbers BM974343, BM974321 and BM974397, both sides printed with images)  (“Exhibit 8”); and

(n)  1 piece of paper, which was printed with 2 purported $500 denomination Hong Kong currency banknotes (2018 series)  (issued by BOC with serial number BM974343 and BM974321, both sides printed with images)  (“Exhibit 9”).

6.Police searched the seized MacBook Pro laptop and found therein the following softcopy files:

(a)  numerous documents containing different images of $500 denomination banknotes (purported to be issued by BOC with serial numbers AK335401 and BT524367);

(b)  a document appearing to be the softcopy file of Exhibit 8, ie one page of document bearing three $500 denomination Hong Kong currency banknotes (purported to be issued by BOC);

(c)  some fragments of a banknote, ie the vertical serial number parts CU762871, AB123456 and BT524367; and

(d)  a folder of documents containing a total of 46 HKID card images relating to 40 different individuals other than the defendant.

7.Upon subsequent examination by counterfeit currency expert, it is opined that Exhibits 1 to 9 were counterfeit currency notes, of which Exhibits 8 and 9 were semi-product of counterfeit banknotes, namely, image of the banknote being printed on a piece of paper but not yet being cut into the finished product.

8.The defendant was arrested.  Under caution regarding the seized counterfeit notes, he admitted he had made counterfeit notes seized, and he did so to have fun and did not use them.  In relation to the defendant’s Account 1, he admitted the account belonged to him, but he did not know that it had that much money.

9.In subsequent cautioned video-recorded interview, the defendant said that:

(a)  In March to December 2021, he earned about HK$10,000 to HK$100,000 through parallel trading. He also earned an income of around HK$20,000 to HK$30,000 through computer maintenance.

(b)  He used Account 1 to help someone called “Ah Bing” to transfer money to other persons on Ah Bing’s instructions.

(c)  As to Ah Bing, he had previously assisted him to buy telephones, SIM cards and to register email accounts. He acquainted Ah Bing through another friend called “Uncle Ming”. However, he did not know why Ah Bing wanted him to buy phones or to register email accounts.

(d)  After buying the phones (each time he bought over 10 second-hand phones), he registered through email accounts under the Apple account system, and he named each Apple account by an alphabet followed by the SIM card telephone number. Then, he passed those items to other persons designated by Ah Bing. He saw those persons taking over the phones to work on them, and afterwards, they passed those phones back to him.

(e)  After that, he needed to pass the phones to another person called “A Chai” who was a Mainland-Hong Kong driver. He knew those phones were to be brought back to the Mainland China. He had seen A Chai once or twice, and other times, he used courier service to pass the phones to A Chai.

(f)  He worked for Ah Bing because he wanted Ah Bing to introduce him to A Chai so that they could have business in Mainland-Hong Kong parallel goods trading. Ah Bing had repaid him the costs of buying phones and SIM cards by transferring money to his Account 1.

(g)  He also passed Account 1 to another friend “Ah Cake” when he was unwell for some time and needed someone to help arranging matters for Ah Bing.

(h)  As to the counterfeit notes, he owned the seized items, including the counterfeit banknotes, pieces of papers bearing images of the same, as well as the seized stationery and equipment that were used to make the counterfeit notes and images.

(i)  His laptop was found with those document files of counterfeit notes because it was synchronized with his phone, which was used to download the images of counterfeit banknotes from the internet and to edit those images.

(j)  He started to make the counterfeit notes for about a week but he did not use them. He made them to have fun with his friends, and he only forgot to throw them away.

Criminal Record

10.The defendant has 8 previous criminal records involving convictions of 13 charges, of which two are similar to Charge 1.

Mitigation

11.The defendant is aged 49.  He has received education up to Form 5.  He is divorced and was living with his mother at the time of the offences.  His mother suffered from arterial fibrillation and also psychiatric illness which requires long-term follow-up consultations.  Since his incarceration, his mother has moved to live with his grandmother, who is aged 100 and suffers from heart failure.

12.The defendant has previously worked as a pharmacy clerk, construction worker, guesthouse supervisor and care worker for children and elderly.  At the time of the offences, he was working as a care worker earning about HK$24,000 per month.  He has also traded in surgical masks and repair computers as side businesses.

13.For Charge 1, defence counsel submitted that whilst money laundering is a serious offence, the present offence is not the worst of its kind, in that:

(a)  The nature of the predicate offence is not known; there is no evidence to suggest it was of a serious kind, such as fraud or drug trafficking;

(b)  There is no evidence to suggest that the defendant had any knowledge of or was involved in any predicate offence;

(c)  There was no international element; and

(d)  The defendant made the transfer on Ah Bing’s instruction without receiving any monetary reward; he did so in the hope that Ah Bing could give him assistance in his trading business as he knew that Ah Bing had a mainland-Hong Kong mobile phone trading business.

14.Although this is the second time that the defendant is convicted of the offence of money laundering, it was submitted that the offence in ESCC 1497/2024 was committed subsequent to the present offence.  Therefore, defence counsel invited this court not to take this previous record as an aggravating feature in sentencing.

15.For Charges 2 and 3, defence counsel again submitted that they are not the worst of their kind, in that:

(a)  The scale of manufacturing operation was small and domestic;

(b)  The number of counterfeit banknotes was small (17 in Charge 2; 8 in Charge 3);

(c)  The total face value of these counterfeit notes were not high (HK$8,500 in Charge 2; HK$4,000 in Charge 3);

(d)  The quality of the counterfeit banknotes was low. According to the counterfeit currency expert, the counterfeit banknotes displayed inferior printing quality, were printed by inkjet printing method, and were devoid of security features;

(e)  The defendant made the counterfeit banknotes for about a week, which was not a lengthy time;

(f)  The defendant made the counterfeit notes for fun and had no intention of using them; and

(g)  This is the first time the defendant is convicted of the charge of making counterfeit notes.

16.Defence counsel also lodged with the court mitigation letters from the defendant, the defendant’s mother and the former supervisor of the defendant.  They all say that the defendant is determined to start afresh and that they would be supportive of the defendant in his rehabilitation.  In his mitigation letter to the court, the defendant himself expressed remorse and his determination to start afresh.

17.During his time in custody, it was said that both the defendant’s grandmother and the defendant’s mother had on occasion been hospitalised, and as a result of which the defendant has come to realise that he was close to losing someone he loves without being able to say goodbye, and therefore is determined to start afresh.

18.Defence counsel submitted the strongest mitigation in this case is obviously the defendant’s timely plea.  It was also submitted that Charges 2 and 3 arose from the same set of facts, and therefore asked for a concurrent sentence.  Although Charges 2 and 3 are separate from Charge 1 and in principle their sentence should run consecutively to Charge 1, defence counsel asked this court to take into consideration the totality principle when arriving at the total sentence in this case.

19.Further, it is submitted that the defendant is currently serving a 24-month sentence for an attempted burglary case (DCCC 276/2025), and his estimated release date being the mid of October 2026.  In light of the totality principle, the court is invited to pass an ultimate sentence which does not result in a crushing punishment to the defendant (HKSAR v Lee Ming Yin, CACC 332/2010, unreported, 26 January 2011).

Discussion

20.Before sentencing, this court has considered fully all that was submitted on behalf of the defendant by defence counsel, mitigation letters lodged, as well as the authorities in the area.

Charge 1

21.On conviction upon indictment of this offence, a person is liable to a fine of $5 million and to imprisonment for 14 years.

22.In the case of HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, 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 placed by those convicted of those offences.  He said that deterrence was paramount in sentencing exercise as the criminality in laundering arose from the encouragement and nourishment that it gives to the crime in general.

23.He said that the amount of money laundered is a significant factor, and the court should also take into account the factors including:

(a)  the nature of the predicate offence;

(b)  the state of the offender’s knowledge;

(c)  where the operation involved international dimension, this would be a significant aggravating feature;

(d)  the sophistication of the offence, including the degree of planning;

(e)  where the offence was committed by or on behalf of an organised criminal syndicate, this would be an aggravating feature;

(f)  whether there was one transaction or many, and the length of time over which the offence was committed;

(g)  whether the offender continued to launder funds after he had discovered the nature of the funds were proceeds of an offence or a serious offence was involved; and

(h)  the role of the offender and the acts performed by him.

24.In this case, the amount of money laundered is HK$938,814.3.  This is not a substantial amount and the duration of the offence is approximately 3 months.  It involves 150 deposits and 505 withdrawals. 

25.It is clear from the number of deposits and withdrawals, the period of time concerned, and the large number of unknown individual counterparties, that the operation of the account must have involved a criminal syndicate.

26.Although there is no evidence what the predicate offence was, from the video-recorded interview of the defendant, it is within his knowledge that Ah Bing was clearly involved in the business which resorted to the use of large number of phones, SIM cards and email accounts, which is totally consistent with cases of telephone deception businesses, and the defendant was assisting Ah Bing in his business.  However, there is no evidence before the court that the defendant was fully aware of the details of the predicate offence.

27.There is also no evidence of the benefit received by the defendant in providing the account for use by Ah Bing.  But according to the defendant, he was the one who managed Account 1 on Ah Bing’s instructions.

28.In the case of SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, 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.

29.In the Wan Kwok Keung case, the Court of Appeal referred to the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, where the sentencing starting point for laundering money between $1 million and $2 million would be 3 years’ imprisonment.

30.Considering the circumstances in the present case, in particular the amount of money laundered, the number of deposits and withdrawals, the period within which the offence was committed, the personal knowledge of the defendant in the business of Ah Bing, the actual operation of Account 1 by the defendant on instructions, it is clear that the role of the defendant is more than that of a stooge merely handing over his bank account for use by others.

31.There is also an involvement of criminal syndicate.  Although there is absence of international element, a cross-border element is present.

32.In these circumstances, the court finds the appropriate sentencing starting point for Charge 1 is 3 years’ imprisonment.

33.It is well established that money laundering is a serious offence and personal background of the defendant is seldom a valid mitigating factor.  Commission of the offence due to financial difficulty, as in this case, is not a valid mitigating factor.  Immediate custodial sentence is the only appropriate sentencing option. 

34.The defendant has pleaded guilty and is therefore entitled to full one-third sentencing discount.  He is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment for this charge.

Charges 2 and 3

35.A person convicted of this charge on indictment is liable to imprisonment for 3 years.

36.The Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Wong Hoi Yat & Others [2006] 3 HKLRD 150, stressed the serious nature of the charge as it affects Hong Kong as an international financial centre.  People may have lost trust and faith in the circulating currency.  Further, with the advance of technology, making counterfeit notes becomes easier than before.  It is said that the court must send a clear message that serious penalty would result should people commit such offence, to avoid the prevalence of the offence.

37.In the Wong Hoi Yat case, the Court of Appeal sets out factors to be considered in sentencing, including the scale of the manufacturing operation, the quantity, value and degree of sophistication of the counterfeit copies, the nature and efficacy of the paraphernalia, the length of time for which the offence has been carried on, the role(s)  and background of individual defendants, and the reason and circumstances of the commission of the offence.

38.In this case, the scale of the manufacturing operation was small and the equipment was not sophisticated.

39.Total face value of the counterfeit notes for Charge 2 is HK$8,500 and that of Charge 3 is HK$4,000.

40.According to the counterfeit currency expert, the quality of these counterfeit banknotes was of inferior quality as they were printed by inkjet printing method, and were devoid of security features.

41.However, the defendant was the mastermind of the operation.  He was the one totally in charge of the operation and the operation was within his own premises.  All the equipment belonged to him.  The defendant also has 6 prior criminal convictions, involving charges of dishonesty.

42.Considering the factors aforesaid and bearing in mind the very serious nature of the offence, the appropriate sentencing starting point for both Charge 2 and Charge 3 would be 2 years’ imprisonment.

43.The defendant has pleaded guilty instead of entitled to full one-third sentencing discount.  He is therefore sentenced to 16 months’ imprisonment for each of Charge 2 and Charge 3.[1]

Totality

44.Nature of the 1^st charge offence is totally different to that of the 2^nd and 3^rd charge offence and they were committed 4 months apart.  They are totally unconnected.  However, considering the culpability of the defendant in the case, this court considers that the just and proportionate total sentence (after plea)  on the defendant is 38 months’ imprisonment.  Therefore, sentence for Charges 2 and 3 is to run totally concurrent with each other.  14 months of the sentence for Charges 2 and 3 is to run consecutive to the sentence of Charge 1.

45.Defence counsel has also invited this court to consider that part of the sentence in this case be made concurrent with the sentence passed on the defendant in the attempted burglary case (DCCC 276/2025)  committed on 12 May 2024.

46.Commission of the 3 offences in the present case occurred in 2021 and 2022 and are therefore long before the defendant committed the burglary offence. They are also entirely different in nature, totally unconnected.

47.The defendant is his letter in mitigation says he is determined to start afresh.  The defendant’s mother and former supervisor in their mitigation letters are all supportive of the defendant’s rehabilitation.  Though this court has serious reservation to the defendant’s determination to start afresh, but giving the defendant benefit of doubt and in order to avoid crushing sentence on the defendant in his road to rehabilitation, the court is minded to order that 4 months’ imprisonment in the present case is to run concurrent with the sentence in DCCC 276/2025.

48.The defendant is sentenced to 38 months’ imprisonment in this case, of which 4 months is to run concurrent with the sentence that he is presently serving for DCCC 276/2025.