HKSAR v. Paculio Charity Joy Trabajada

DCCC 177/2025

[2026] HKDC 1127

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 177 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleads guilty to a single charge of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.

The Prosecution’s case

2.In February 2023, 5 deception victims were deceived to pay a total of HKD381,835 into a Standard Chartered Bank account (the “Account”)  held by the defendant by false representing to them these payments were for completing tasks on internet platforms for rewards; investing on a bogus investment platform or payments connected with genuine foreign exchange transactions.

3.Upon realizing they were scammed, reports were made to the police.

The Account

4.The Account is a personal account in the defendant’s sole name:

(1)  The Account was opened on 12 February 2023. It was reported that the defendant was a beautician;

(2)  The customer was acquired through “Digital Channel”;

(3)  Facial and HKID card images of the defendant were retained by the bank.

5.Between 22 February 2023 and 28 February 2023:

(1)  There were 66 deposits in the total amount of HKD2,751,387.98 (including the deposits by the victims). The majority (61 transactions in the total amount of HKD2,573,637.98 representing 93.5% of the total amount deposited)  were FPS or bank transfers, with the rest being cash deposits;

(2)  There were 64 withdrawals in the total amount of HKD2,751,337. All were FPB/bank transfers.

Arrest

6.The defendant was arrested on 8 January 2024.

7.In her cautioned VRI, she said she knew nothing about the account, the scam or the banking transactions.  She admitted the HKID card used for opening the account belonged to her.

8.The defendant also admitted that she lent her HKID card and provided a photo of herself to unknown persons, knowing they would be used for opening the account.

Mitigation and sentence

9.The defendant was born in the Philippines and is now 47 years of age.  She is married with 2 children, aged 16 & 18 respectively.  The defendant had worked as domestic helper both in Hong Kong and Kuwait since 2002.  Her latest employment was in Hong Kong with a Japanese employer before her arrest.  She has a clear record.

10.Her husband was a military serviceman in Philippine.  Unfortunately, he was severely injured in 2013.

11.As to the present offence, the defence said on 12 February 2023, after having lunch with her cousin, they went to Tseung Kwan O.  While they were there, they met an unidentified Philippine woman who was at that time accompanied by 2 Chinese males.  They made clear that if a person would lend their HKID card for 15 to 20 minutes and provide a picture of themselves, a bank account could be opened electronically and they would receive HKD500 cash.

12.That was exactly what she did and an account was opened, but the defendant said she did not get the HKD500 in full, she needed to pay the Philippine woman HKD200 in return for her part in the deal and so she did pay her.

13.The Defence submits the defendant is of the lowest order of culpability given her role involved in the present offence.

14.In HKSAR v Boma[1], the Court of Appeal has set out matters to be considered in sentencing:

(a)  the nature of the predicate offence;

(b)  the knowledge or understanding of the predicate offence by the money launderer himself;

(c)  whether any international element exists;

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

(e)  whether any criminal syndicate is involved;

(f)  the numbers of transactions and the length of time;

(g)  whether the defendant acquired any subsequent knowledge of the predicate offence and continued in his activity after acquiring that knowledge;

(h)  the role and acts of the money launderer in this case.

15.As in Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung[2], the amount involved is another significant factor to be considered. 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.

16.I accept the defendant had no knowledge and did not take part in the predicate offence, and that no international element was involved.  The defendant’s reward was only a few hundred dollars and the offence only lasted for about 7 days.  However the reality is that without the help of the defendant, these types of deception even if succeeded will have no means to receive the deceived money, the defendant was in fact playing a minor but very important role in the scam.

17.I have considered everything said on her behalf in her plea in mitigation, the role of the defendant, in particular her guilty plea and her clear record, and the amount involved ( about 2.7 million dollars), I will adopt 3 years as the starting point, and the next issue is the discount she is entitled to, given the fact that she only tendered her guilty plea on her trial date.

18.Counsel suggested the defendant should be entitled to full 1/3 discount. Counsel complained of late serving of prosecution documents which attributed to her late guilty plea.  In particular the serving of banker affirmation which would demonstrate how the account was opened and that would affect her plea.

19.I can only agree serving of the prosecution documents the earlier the better, but that does not really go to strength of the evidence which would ultimately affect her plea. The defendant was well aware of the fact that she sold her account to another person, she knew her case and where she stood, it does not impair or advance her case how the bank account was opened.

20.Although she only tendered her plea on the first day of her trial, she had through her lawyer written to court indicating her guilty plea in advance (in any event after trial dates had been fixed)  , dispensing the need of the attendance of any witness.  I am prepared to afford her 25% as discount.

21.The prosecution has applied to enhance the sentence under s 27 of the OSCO, which the defence opposes saying there is a significant fall in this type of offence and enhancement is not required.

22.I have before me a statement from Chief Inspector Li.  In his statement we can see the total number of deception and money laundering cases in 2020 was 16,643, and it reached its highest point in 2025 with 47,701 cases, in the 1^st quarter of 2026, another 14,584 cases were detected.

23.The amount involved for the deception and money laundering cases in 2020 was 3,017.89M, it reached its highest point in 2022 with 36,644.73M, and the amount was on the decline from 12,033.26M in 2023, 6,115.15M in 2024, 7,624.15M in 2025 and in the 1^st quarter of 2026 at 1,631.40M.

24.I can only agree the statistic demonstrates the amount involved had declined gradually, but the number of cases still remain very high, one simply cannot ignore the damage and adverse effect it still has to the society . I am satisfied the application for enhancement is justified. I am of the view around 20% increase is just and appropriate given the present statistic, the defendant is therefore sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.