HKSAR v YE JIEQING

DCCC 1031/2024 & 1117/2025 (Consolidated)

[2026] HKDC 1304

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 1031 OF 2024 AND 1117 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.D pleaded guilty to 4 counts of dealing together with another person with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (“money laundering”), contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455 (“OSCO”).

Facts

2.(i)     On 7 September 2010, D opened an account with Hang Seng Bank (“the HSB Account”) for his pay checks. In the opening mandate, he claimed to be working at Café de Coral.

(ii) On 22 March 2023, D opened an account with the Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (“the HKB Account”). In the opening mandate, he claimed to be unemployed.

(iii) On 23 May 2023, D opened an account with the Bank of East Asia (“the BEA Account”). In the opening mandate, he claimed to be a construction labourer.

(iv) On 2 July 2020, D opened an account with the Bank of China (Hong Kong) (“the BOC Account”). In the opening mandate, he claimed to be an electrician with a monthly income between $10,001 and $25,000.

3.A victim of an investment fraud was lured by scammers into transferring $17,500 to the HSB Account on 8 November 2022.

4.A victim of an online purchase fraud was led into believing that the alleged buyer had mistakenly overpaid $28,000 and was thus lured into transferring this amount on 17 May 2023 to the HKB Account as refund of the overpayment. In fact, the alleged overpayment had been made by a bounced cheque.

5.Four victims of an online investment fraud were lured into remitting a total of $235,288 between 9 and 13 November 2022 to the BEA Account.

6.Nine victims of online investment frauds were lured into remitting a total of $1,714,848 between 17 and 23 December 2022 to the BOC Account.

7.Between 29 December 2022 and 14 June 2024, D was arrested on 6 different occasions by different teams of police in relation to these offences. In the various cautioned video-recorded interviews, D stated that:

(i) he personally opened the HSB Account which he later “sold” to an acquaintance he made in a gambling establishment for $2,500; he had received some letters from the bank asking him return some money to other people; he had withdrawn around $6,000 before this account was terminated by the bank;

(ii) he opened the HKB Account with his mobile phone; he “sold” this account and gave the bank card and the password to a person called “Tsui Shui Kit” of his own village in mainland China; he had no knowledge about the transactions in this account;

(iii) he confirmed his signatures on the BEA Account opening mandate; he could not recall when he lent this account to others or the whereabouts of the ATM card, and was unsure if all the transactions in this account were handled by him;

(iv) he opened the BOC Account years ago for his pay checks; he saw an advertisement on WhatsApp offering to buy bank accounts; he sold this account gave the ATM card and the account password to “Ah Keung” towards the end of 2022 for $2,000 or $3,000; he had no means of contacting Ah Keung, and had no knowledge of or any dealings with the transactions in this account after selling it.

8.Fund flow analyses of the above Accounts show that:

(i) between 8 and 10 November 2022, there were 76 deposits totalling $3,766,979 and 46 withdrawals totalling $3,761,003 in the HSB Account. This Account has become inactive since 10 November 2022 with a remaining balance of $6,027.06;

(ii) between 20 April and 17 May 2023, there were 7 deposits totalling $29,411 and 15 withdrawals totalling $29,417 in the HKB Account;

(iii) between 9 and 14 November 2022, there were 58 deposits totalling $2,158,391 and 71 withdrawals totalling $2,157,756.3 in the BEA Account;

(iv) between 21 November and 23 December 2022, there were 78 deposits totalling $5,045,601 and 46 withdrawals totalling $5,045,601 in the BOC Account;

(v) the funds deposited into these Accounts were made by multiple counterparties by transfer. Most of the funds were withdrawn on the day of the deposit either for an amount identical to the deposit or by several withdrawals, indicating that these Accounts were used as temporary repositories of funds. Typical mirror patterns were detected.

9.D owned no property in Hong Kong. The amounts of money deposited into the above Accounts were incommensurate with his financial means.

Defendant’s Background

10.D is 37 years old. He was born in 1989 in the mainland and completed his high school education there. He came to Hong Kong in 2010 with his parents and elder brother. He had worked here in a fast food shop, as an air-conditioning maintenance worker and as an attendant in an amusement game centre which closed down during the Covid pandemic.  He has since remained unemployed. He is single.

11.He has a conviction for possession of Part I poison in 2021.

Mitigation

12.Defence counsel Mr Gordon Wong asked the court to consider the following features:

· D’s remorse as stated in his mitigation letter and as evidenced by his cooperation with the police and his timely plea.

· D’s sale of his accounts were hardly sophisticated acts of money laundering.

· There is no evidence that D took part in or had knowledge of the predicate offences.

· There is no international element.

· The offending time for each charge was relatively short – Charge 1 is 3 days, Charge 2 is 28 days, Charge 3 is 6 days and Charge 4 is 33 days. However, Charge 2 was committed while D was on police bail, as he had been arrested for the first time on 29 December 2022 for his involvement in this case.

· The total amount of money involved is $11 million.

13.Counsel referred to HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 [40] for some of the significant considerations in sentencing for this type of offence. He pointed out that there are no sentencing guidelines for money laundering offences, and referred to the sentences approved by the Court of Appeal in the following cases for reference: (i) HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 (the offender and others laundered about $2.5 million in 2 months, a starting point of 3.5 years was considered appropriate. From the various cases quoted in the judgment, one can see that if the sum exceeds $10 million, the starting point could reach 5 years or above); (ii) Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung (雲國強) [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 (over a course of 7 years, the offender laundered a total of $14 million bookmaking proceeds on thousands of occasions. The Court of Appeal held that the starting point should not be less than 4 years); (iii) HKSAR v Lam Man Yin CACC 306/2025 (US dollars equivalent of HK$6.4 million was laundered; the starting point of 4 years and 4 months was approved by the Court of Appeal); (iv) HKSAR v Chau Yu Tung CACC  62/2025 (Charge 1 involved $1.9 million laundered in a week, Charge 2 involved $2.9 million laundered in a month. The starting points of 3 years for Charge 1 and 3.5 years for Charge 2 were approved by the Court of Appeal).

14.Mr Wong submitted that given that the total amount of proceeds in this case is $11 million, that 4 bank accounts were involved, that the offences took place within 7 months of each other, that D’s acts were not sophisticated and that there are no aggravating factors, the global starting point should be no more than 5 years’ imprisonment.

15.With regard to the application for the enhancement of sentence under OSCO, counsel concedes that the use of stooge accounts for money laundering was still prevalent in the first half of 2026; however, both the number of stooges arrested and the amount of proceeds going through stooge accounts are on the decline since 2024. Citing a number of District Court cases for reference, counsel submitted that the enhancement percentage in this case should be in the range of 20% to 25%.

Sentencing considerations

16.Money laundering is a serious offence which attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment.

17.The offence is a serious one as it is an attempt to legitimise proceeds from criminal activities. Successful deterrents against money laundering could be effective measures against crime. No guidelines for sentence of such an offence have been laid down as the crime can be committed in a variety of ways and there is a wide range of culpability.

18.According to Hsu Yu Yi, the factors to be considered in sentencing for this offence are: (a) the amount of money involved is a major consideration; (b) the offender’s level of participation; (c) the sentence imposed on the predicate offence if it can be known; (d) if the case has an international element; and (e) the length of time the offence lasted.

19.The Court of Appeal in Boma emphasized the importance of deterrence for this kind of offence, pointed out that the amount of money laundered was a significant feature, and set out a non-exhaustive list of other significant features, which includes: (i) the nature of the predicate offence; (ii) the state of the offender’s knowledge; (iii) whether an international element was involved; (iv) the sophistication of the offence; (v) whether organised criminal syndicate was involved; (vi) the number of transactions and length of the offence; (vii) whether the offender continued to launder funds after knowing that they were proceeds of a serious crime; and (viii) the offender’s role and the acts performed by him.

20.There are also the observations made by the Court of Appeal in Wan Kwok Keung that the starting points for previous money laundering cases set out by Cheung JA in Hsu Yu Yi indicated that the starting point is 3 years or so where the proceeds involved is between HK$1 million and HK$2 million, 4 years or so where the proceeds involved is between HK$3 million and HK$6 million, and could be over 5 years where the proceeds involved is above HK$10 million. The Court in HKSAR v Liao Liting (廖麗婷) CACC 334/2015 remarked that while these observations are not sentencing guidelines, they provide valuable reference[1].

21.The Court in Secretary for Justice v Tse Chi Kin （謝志建）CAAR 4/2024 pointed out that in dealing with money laundering sentencing, the judge should consider on the one hand the maximum sentence for this type of offence and the need for deterrent sentence, and on the other hand the facts of the case and his overall impression of the case; the judge should not merely rely on the appropriate sentencing bracket for the amount of money laundered.[2]

22.Charge 1 involves laundering HK$3,766,979 in 3 days; Charge 2 involves laundering HK$29,411 in 28 days; Charge 3 involves laundering HK$2,158,391 in 6 days; Charge 4 involves laundering HK$5,045,601 in 33 days.

23.These 4 charges involve D lending or selling his 4 different accounts which were used to launder a total of $11,000,000 in about 6½ months.

24.D was obviously a stooge or money mule. His role falls towards the lower end of the “gradations of culpability” mentioned in Boma[3].

25.Given the circumstances of this case, and bearing in mind that these are very serious offences which call for deterrent sentences, I will adopt the following starting points for the charges:

Charge 1 – 3½ years’ imprisonment (42 months);

Charge 2 – 9 months’ imprisonment, further enhanced by 3 months for committing this offence while on bail (12 months);

Charge 3 – 2½ years’ imprisonment (30 months);

Charge 4 – 4 years’ imprisonment (48 months).

26.I consider a starting point of 4 years 9 months’ imprisonment to be an appropriate reflection of D’s total culpability for his involvement in all the charges.

27.His guilty plea will reduce the above sentences to 28 months’ imprisonment on Charge 1, 8 months’ imprisonment on Charge 2, 20 months’ imprisonment on Charge 3, and 32 months’ imprisonment on Charge 4. Sentence for his overall culpability after plea is 38 months’ imprisonment.

28.A statement dated 30 June 2026 made by Chief Inspector LI Yiu-nam (“the statement”) of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment of the Financial and Intelligence Bureau was tendered by the prosecution in support of its application under section 27(2) of OSCO to enhance the sentence on the grounds of prevalence and the nature and extent of harm caused to the community.

29.The statement describes someone who has assisted in the money laundering activities but has minimal or no involvement in the predicate offence or has little or no knowledge about the predicate offence as a money laundering stooge.[4]

30.Paragraph 19 of the statement says: “As can be seen from Table A, the use of stooge remains prominent. There is a rising trend in the use of stooge from 31.38% recorded in the year 2020 to 75.10% recorded in the year 2024. The police have spent a lot of resources on crime prevention, advertising and warning people not to ‘sell’ or ‘lend’ their bank accounts to others and could possibly be lured into taking the risks of commission of ML offence. It seems that the trend remains prevalent albeit all the publicity work.” 

31.I note that the percentage of the use of money laundering stooges for Jan-May 2026 is 73.29%, and the total amount of reported losses and/or proceeds laundered in money laundering cases for the same period in 2026 is $1,232.59 million.

32.The statement points out that the increasing use of money laundering stooges has hampered the anti-money laundering regime in Hong Kong in that it interfered with the normal operation of the banking system and harmed Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial centre, encouraged more crimes to be committed, allowed culprits to make use of their ill-gotten gains to engage in a wider range of illegal activities, increased the investigation efforts and resources of law enforcement agencies, and rendered people with low income or little realisation of the consequences of selling their bank accounts more likely to be lured into surrendering their accounts for monetary rewards.

33.I accept entirely all the matters set out in the statement, and find the sentence enhancement application proved beyond reasonable doubt.

34.Although both the number of cases with stooge accounts and the total amount of reported losses and/or money laundered have been on the decline from their respective peaks in 2022 and 2023, these offences are still prevalent and causing tremendous harm to the community. I will enhance the sentences after plea by 25%. The enhanced sentences will be as follows:

Charge 1 – 35 months;

Charge 2 – 10 months;

Charge 3 – 25 months;

Charge 4 – 40 months;

Overall culpability – 47 months.

35.To reflect D’s overall culpability and to give effect to the totality principle, it is ordered that sentences on Charges 2, 3 and 4 are to run concurrently with each other. 28 months of the sentence on Charge 1 are to run concurrently with the sentence on Charge 4, the remaining 7 months of Charge 1 are to run consecutively with Charge 4, resulting in a total sentence of 47 months’ imprisonment in respect of all the charges.