HKSAR v. Ng Yim Ming

DCCC 90/2026

[2026] HKDC 1444

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 90 OF 2026

————————

————————

————————————————

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

————————————————

1.Mr Ng faces a charge sheet consisting of two charges, with Charge 2 laid in the alternative to Charge 1, as follows.

2.Charge 1 is Conspiracy to deal 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, and sections 159A and 159C of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200.  Particulars are that he, in December 2024, in Hong Kong, conspired with other person(s) unknown, to deal with property, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the said property, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence.

3.Charge 2 is 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.  Particulars are that he, on 31 December 2024, in Hong Kong, together with other person(s) unknown, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely a sum of $100,000 Hong Kong currency, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

4.Before me, Mr Ng pleaded guilty to Charge 1.  Because Charge 2 is expressed to be an alternative charge to Charge 1, I directed that no plea need be taken on Charge 2.  Prosecution also confirmed Mr Ng’s conviction on Charge 1 is deemed satisfaction of the charge sheet.

Facts admitted by Mr Ng

5.On 30 December 2024, at about 1 pm, PW1 (a lady aged 97) received an anonymous call on her mobile phone from someone (“the Caller”) claiming to be her son.  He claimed to have been arrested by the police for assaulting someone else and he asked for $100,000 bail money, to be collected by his colleague.

6.Believing the Caller to be her second son, PW1 passed $100,000 to an unknown male (later identified as Mr Ng) outside the Bank of China (Hong Kong) branch at Mong Kok Road (“the BOC Branch”) at about 11:35 am on 31 December 2024, as instructed by the Caller.

7.Nearby CCTV captured Mr Ng thereafter walked into a rear lane while being followed by another male.

8.Upon returning home, PW1 realized she had been scammed.  She reported to the police.

9.On 10 January 2025, at about 9:22 am, police arrested Mr Ng for deception at his residence.  Under caution, Mr Ng admitted collecting from PW1 the sum of $100,000 being scam proceeds; he then passed over the money to a male “Bob” who transferred $1,300 to Mr Ng via Alipay as reward.

10.Later on the same day, a cautioned VRI was conducted with Mr Ng in which he stated:

Regarding the recruitment and modus operandi of money collection

(a) Around mid-December 2024, he got acquainted with a person nicknamed Dai Lik on Telegram, who referred a “cash collection” job to him and introduced him to a person known as Bob, who recruited him;

(b) Before collecting money each time, Bob photographed Mr Ng and his HKID card, searched his bag, and provided him with a work phone (“the Work Phone”) and money to cover his transportation costs;

(c) All work-related communications between Mr Ng and Bob were conducted via Telegram;

(d) Mr Ng would receive a reward of about $1,500 for completing each money collection task; and

(e) Bob never informed Mr Ng of the source and purpose of the money he was assigned to collect.

Regarding the incident in relation to PW1

(f) On the morning of 31 December 2024, Mr Ng travelled to Mong Kok with Bob;

(g) Upon arrival at the BOC Branch, on Bob’s instruction, Mr Ng approached PW1, passed his Work Phone to her for listening, and collected a paper bag containing $100,000 from her;

(h) Bob was monitoring Mr Ng throughout the collection process;

(i) Afterwards, Mr Ng passed the money collected from PW1 to Bob in a nearby rear lane;

(j) After collecting money from PW1, Bob told Mr Ng that his job was complete; Mr Ng then returned his Work Phone to Bob and went to a gym in Jordan to exercise;

(k) Mr Ng received $1,300 via Alipay as a reward for collecting money from PW1; and

(l) After the incident, Bob deleted the conversation history between him and Mr Ng.

Regarding Mr Ng’s involvement in other money collection incidents

(m) Mr Ng had also collected money from other elderly individuals on 4 other occasions, ie on 24 December 2024 in Fanling, and on 30 December 2024 in Ka Wai Chuen (Hung Hom), Tai Kok Tsui and Lei Yu Mun respectively. Mr Ng received a total reward of $6,200 on these occasions.

11.On 12 January 2025, another cautioned VRI was conducted with Mr Ng in which he stated:

(a) In the morning of 30 December 2024, Mr Ng attended the flat of an elderly lady (“the Elderly Lady”) at Ka Wai Chuen (Hung Hom) to collect money on Bob’s instruction;

(b) Upon arrival, Mr Ng dialed a designated number on his Work Phone and passed it to the Elderly Lady to listen; subsequently, the Elderly Lady handed Mr Ng a stack of money which Bob told him was $80,000;

(c) Mr Ng then began counting the money at the Elderly Lady’s request but stopped after counting $40,000 to $50,000 on Bob’s instruction to leave immediately; and

(d) After collecting money from the Elderly Lady, Mr Ng met Bob in a stairwell and handed him the money to be counted.

12.On 16 May 2025, another cautioned VRI was conducted with Mr Ng in which he:

(a) Repeated his admissions regarding his collection of money from PW1 on 31 December 2024, and from the Elderly Lady on 30 December 2024; and

(b) Identified himself from the CCTV captures showing him collecting money from PW1 outside the BOC Branch on 31 December 2024, and showing his visit to Ka Wai Chuen (Hung Hom) on 30 December 2024.

13.Police’s investigation into Mr Ng’s immigration movement record revealed that Mr Ng was in Hong Kong at all material times.

Criminal record

14.Mr Ng has a previous clear record.

Antecedents

15.Mr Ng is aged 33 (31 at the time of the offence), educated to Associate degree level, was a part-time theatre employee at the time of arrest.  Mr Ng is single.  His mother is aged 64.  Mr Ng has two siblings, aged 40 and 38.

Mitigation

16.Mr Vincent Chan of counsel mitigated on behalf of Mr Ng.  The following is a summary of the mitigation submissions.

17.The identifiable “black money” is $100,000.  There is a further sum of $80,000 and the confirmed amount is at least $40,000 to $50,000.

18.Mr Ng was living with his mother before arrest.  His two siblings live apart.  During Mr Ng’s remand, his father passed away.  Mr Ng was not able to attend the funeral.

19.Prior to remand, Mr Ng was earning an average monthly income of less than $10,000 as a part-time employee in theatre.  Although his passion lies in theatre and film production, Mr Ng is determined to secure stable, full-time employment to avoid falling into financial difficulty again.

20.In HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the Court of Appeal took into consideration the following:

“9. There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence because the facts vary from case to case. However the following factors are to be taken into account when determining sentence:

(a) It is the amount of money involved that is a major consideration and not the amount of benefit received by a defendant in the transaction.

(b) The culpability of the offence lies in the assistance, support and encouragement offered to the commission of an indictable offence. So a defendant’s level of participation and the number of occasions on which he is involved in the “money laundering” activities are relevant factors to be considered.

(c) The offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence does not necessarily have any direct correlation with the indictable offence in question. However if the relevant indictable offence can be identified, the court may take into account the sentence imposed on the indictable offence per se when determining the sentence of the dealing offence.

(d) If the case has an international element involving activities carried out across different regions, the court may impose a more severe sentence. This is to protect Hong Kong’s reputation as an international finance and banking hub from being tarnished.

(e) The length of time the offence lasted.”

21.In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal held that given the highly variable circumstances in which the offence might be committed, it was difficult and undesirable to offer guidelines.  This was a category of offence which called for the sentencing judge to engage his “feel” for the case and his sentencing experience bearing in mind always the mischief at which the legislation was directed.  The best one could do was to draw the attention of judges to relevant sentencing considerations (see paras 25, 34 and 39).

22.Having said so, the Court of Appeal held that it would be helpful to identify some of the significant features for which the Court should look and take into account, though it is not possible to produce an exhaustive list:

(a) The nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the penalty available for the predicate offence;

(b) This brings us to the question of the state of knowledge of the offender. This divides itself in two — knowledge of the nature of the predicate offence, where the predicate offence is known to the court; and knowledge of the fact that the funds are the proceeds of an indictable offence;

(c) An international dimension will always be a significant aggravating feature; and by international dimension we include money laundered from, or for those operating in, the Mainland;

(d) The sophistication of the offence is always relevant. This will include the degree of planning and whether deceit is practised to achieve the objective;

(e) Where the offence is committed by or on behalf of an organised criminal syndicate, that is an aggravating fact;

(f) It is relevant to take into account whether there is one transaction or many and the length of time over which the offence was committed;

(g) As in the case of Secretary for Justice v Herzberg[1], it will be an aggravating feature where the offender continues to launder funds after he has discovered as a fact that the funds are the proceeds of an offence or after he has discovered the nature of an offence which is serious; and

(h) The sentencing court should have regard to the role of the offender and the acts performed by him. In this regard, the director of a laundering operation or scheme should attract a greater sentence than a person engaged by him although sentences should be sufficient to deter those who might be prevailed upon by directing minds. In the case of a person down the chain, the Court will wish to have regard to whether a benefit has been received and if so the nature and size of the benefit. But within the category of persons down the chain there will be gradations of culpability. So for example the drug addict or petty crook who is paid a small sum to open an account and hand over its operation to another with no more participation and no more knowledge than that it is going to be used for some sort of crime is much less culpable than an offender of a different sort not “used” in that way.

23.The starting point for phone deception case is 4 years’ imprisonment (see HKSAR v Hung Yung Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 174 at para 182).

24.In HKSAR v Cen Huakuo [2015] 2 HKLRD 951, the case involved a conspiracy to commit money laundering in which an old lady fell victim to a phone scam. The defendant collected money from the victim.  The defendant was able to say the name of the old lady’s son and claimed that her son was being held captive.  He handed a mobile phone to her so that another male could continue to put pressure on her.  On appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the appropriate starting point to be 3 years’ imprisonment because the defendant, despite telling the victim her son was being detained, did not take part in the deception and only showed sketchy understanding about the indictable offence.

25.In HKSAR v Lin Zong Yue [2015] 3 HKLRD 196, the Court of Appeal held that money laundering may be preferred because the prosecution might be unable to prove beyond reasonable doubt the defendant’s direct involvement in a conspiracy to defraud.  The court had to take account of whether the defendant had a sketchy or a detailed knowledge and understanding of the related indictable offence; and whether he participated in the deception (paras 13-15). For defendants who have no more than some sketchy idea about the predicate offence, the appropriate starting point is 3 years’ imprisonment.

26.Mr Ng indicated his intention to plead guilty to the offence at the first available opportunity.  Mr Chan asks the full 1/3 sentencing discount be given to Mr Ng.

27.Mr Chan submits that the present case is not the most serious of its kind.  The predicate offence is telephone deception.  This is a conspiracy charge rather than a one-handed money laundering offence.

28.Mr Ng was in financial difficulty and his part-time job was unstable.

29.In mid-December 2024, Mr Ng was referred to a “cash collection” job and was later recruited by a person called Bob.  Bob had never informed Mr Ng of the source and purpose of the money he was assigned to collect.  Due to financial difficulty, Mr Ng committed the present offence.

30.Mr Ng would only pass the Work Phone provided by Bob to the victim for listening without saying anything himself.  He then collected the money.  He did not deceive the victim nor tell any lies or say anything to assist the deception.  Mr Ng was closely monitored, controlled and supervised by Bob in the whole process.  Mr Ng’s role was limited to cash collection only.

31.Mr Ng, after the 31 December 2024 collection, felt suspicious as all the “jobs” that he had undertaken were collection of cash from elderly persons.  He suspected the money he collected was scam proceeds.  As a result, he ceased association with Bob and did not further take part in any “jobs”.

32.He was arrested on 10 January 2025.  It was against the aforesaid background that he admitted that the $100,000 cash he collected from PW1 was scam proceeds.  It was a later-acquired suspicion; he did not know the details of the telephone deception practised on the victims.

33.Mr Chan submits that Mr Ng did not take part in the deception and only showed no more than a sketchy understanding/idea about the indictable offence. Mr Ng was clearly not the ringleader or mastermind; his role and knowledge were lower than that of the defendant in Cen Huakuo (who, apart from collecting money, said the name of the old lady’s son and claimed that her son was being held captive).

34.The amount of money laundered is not the be-all and end-all of a case but is a significant feature.  The identifiable money involved in the present case was, at maximum, $180,000.  It is not on the high side for money-laundering cases.

35.Mr Ng received $7,500 in total.  While it is a factor to be considered, Mr Chan invites the court not to place too much weight on it.  In most cases of this type, there would be an agreement of reward or the offender commits the offence for monetary reasons (see for example the defendant in Lin Zong Yue who committed the offence for reduction of gambling debt).  Depending on the “integrity” or “reliability” of the recruiter or mastermind, some may receive the reward, some may not, but this does not alter the culpability of the money-collectors: they do it for the money, whether they receive it in the end or not.

36.The offence period was not long.  No cross-border or international element was involved.  There is no evidence to suggest that Mr Ng was part of any organized criminal syndicate or that the offence was related to such a syndicate.

37.On the subject of enhancement of sentence, the statement of CIP Tsang Lee relied on by the prosecution relates to trends of telephone deception cases rather than those of money laundering cases.

38.Mr Chan does not object to the reception of the statement nor seek to furnish other information on the topic.

39.Mr Chan noted that in recent years, there have been no significant downward trends for telephone deception (para 18 of the statement) and “guess who” deception (para 20 of the statement), both in terms of loss involved and overall case numbers); that the number of successful arrests made regarding telephone deception has slightly decreased from the peak in 2023 and 2024 (para 24 of the statement).

40.Mr Chan did not seek to challenge that telephone deception cases are not (or no longer) prevalent or that the financial harm caused to the community by recent occurrences was and is not substantial.

41.Although the statistics provided do not directly relate to the charge, Mr Chan did not seek to deny that Mr Ng’s acts played a role in the telephone deceptions; and at the material time telephone deception was indeed prevalent and caused great harm to the community (see Lin Zong Yue at para 16). These matters constitute the overall circumstances relating to Mr Ng’s culpability which the court may take into account.

42.As such, Mr Chan does not object to the prosecution’s request for enhancement of sentence.  Mr Chan does not seek to cross-examine any witness in this regard.

43.Mr Chan submitted on behalf of Mr Ng two mitigation letter written in Chinese respectively by Mr Ng (without English translation) and his mother (with English translation).  The contents generally are that Mr Ng is remorseful and he committed the offence because the downward trend in the film and television industry affected his income and his ability to repay his loans; that he wrongly believed the nature of the temporary job offered online; that he is extremely regretful and promises to abide by all laws and regulations in future; that Mr Ng is a filial son; that he is determined to change his ways. The letter writers asked for a lenient sentence and a chance for reform so Mr Ng may return home sooner to take care of his mother.

Sentence

44.I have borne in mind the authorities urged upon me by Mr Chan.

45.I am satisfied that at all material times, Mr Ng had no more than some sketchy idea about the predicate offence of (telephone) deception.

46.I take into account Mr Ng’s involvement in the incidents other than the incident relating to PW1 came to light as a result of his own admissions.

47.I will adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.

48.Mr Ng pleaded guilty in good time.  He is entitled to the full 1/3 sentencing discount.  There are no other mitigating factors of weight to justify another sentence reduction.  Same as the applicant in Cen Huakuo, Mr Ng cannot expect leniency from the court simply because he has a previous clear record.

49.Pursuant to section 27(2) of OSCO, Cap 455, the prosecution has sought to furnish information to the court relating to (a) the prevalence of money laundering offences; (b) the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of money laundering offences; and (c) the nature and extent of the total benefit, whether financial or otherwise, accruing directly or indirectly to any person from recent occurrences of money laundering offences.

50.The information came in the form of a Chinese witness statement (with English translation) dated 16 July 2026 under the hand of CIP Tsang Lee relating specifically to telephone deception cases rather than to money laundering offences.

51.From the table drawn up in para 20 of the statement, it can be seen that the number of ‘Guess Who’ Telephone Deception cases (“GWTD cases”) (of which this is one) with monetary losses went from 1,067 in 2024 to 1,958 in 2025, and to 3,302 in 2026 (projected by extrapolation), with the corresponding cumulative losses in ‘Payment in Person’ cases (of which this is one) rising from $43.49M (2024) to $61.94M (2025) and to $81.62M (projected for 2026).

52.I am satisfied from these figures that GWTD cases were and still are prevalent, that the financial harm caused to the community by recent occurrences of the ‘Payment in Person’ cases was and still is substantial, and that the financial benefit accruing to the culprits from recent occurrences of ‘Payment in Person’ cases was and still is substantial.

53.Although the offence of which Mr Ng is convicted is “Conspiracy to commit money laundering” and not an offence of deception, I take comfort from what fell from the Court of Appeal (D Pang J, as he then was, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal) in Lin Zong Yue (a case of money laundering relating to telephone deception), at para 16:

“… As regards whether or not the sentence should be enhanced, we respectfully adopt another observation made in Cen Huakuo, namely that the court “may … take into account the overall circumstances of the case in so far as they are related to the defendant’s culpability”. This means that the applicant’s acts were after all an important part of the phone scams, and at the material time phone deception was indeed rampant and caused great harm to the community. Therefore, it is appropriate to enhance the sentence in the present case pursuant to the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, as was the case in Cen Huakuo.” (footnotes omitted)

54.Because of the foregoing paragraph, I feel able to enhance the sentence of Mr Ng pursuant to section 27(11) of OSCO, Cap 455.

55.In exercising that power, I deem it appropriate to enhance Mr Ng’s sentence after plea by an extent of 1/3.

56.I am satisfied that the final sentence thus arrived at is not excessive in the circumstances of the offence and the offender.

(Mr Ng, please stand)

57.The sentence for Charge 1 is 32 months’ imprisonment.