HKSAR v. Lau Wing Chi

DCCC 1101/2024 & 668/2025 (Consolidated)

[2026] HKDC 1175

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NOS 1101 OF 2024 & 668 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.In this case the defendant Lau Wing Chi faced two counts of “dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”, (an offence commonly known as “money laundering”). Each charge is about the monies paid into a bank account opened by the defendant under her own name, of which she had the sole control. She pleaded guilty to both counts and convicted upon her plea and admission of facts.

Background

2.The background of this case was an investigation of an investment scam perpetuated in the internet.  During the period between June and September 2022, several citizens received unsolicited messages inviting them to make investments.  They agreed and paid the monies into some designated accounts, some of which were under the defendant’s name and subject of the 1^stcount.  The net loss suffered by all seven victims added up to $7,059,285.77. 

The Financial Status of the Defendant

3.The defendant is a Hong Kong resident.  For the financial years between 2021 and 2023, there was no record of her having any taxable income, nor did she file any tax return. The defendant, also of her own admission, stated that she, between the year 2022 and 2023 worked as a cleaning lady, making about $500 per day. 

Charge 1

4.Charge 1 is about the movement of funds in a savings/deposit account with the Hang Seng Bank.  Between 13 June 2022 and 30June of the same year, there were a total of 124deposits in six different currencies made into that account.  Some of these monies were from one of the victims mentioned in the earlier paragraph. 

5.The foreign currency deposits were converted into HongKong dollars and transferred out of the account, whereas the deposits of Hong Kong dollars were transferred into other accounts almost immediately.  The account was used basically as a repository of the funds. 

6.The total amount, converted to Hong Kong dollars, of the 1^stcharge ran up to $7,687,467.85. 

Charge 2

7.It concerned a Bank of China account opened by the defendant on 28 August 2022.  She represented to the bank that it was used for savings and that she was a manager of an electric appliance manufacturer and that the monies were her salaries.  From 30 August 2022 to 6October 2022, a total of Hong Kong dollars $2,759,049.01 were deposited into this account through 23 deposits.  All the deposits were transferred out of the account on the same day they were received.  The account had been used as a repository of the monies.

8.The defendant was arrested on 6 November 2023.  Under caution, the defendant stated that she had allowed her friend Fei Lung, a recent acquaintance of whom she could not provide any details for the use of the account. 

Sentencing Consideration

9.The Court of Appeal had not set out straightforward sentencing guidelines as the culpability of the accused is dependent on the facts of each individual case, but it did in HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 CA, identify some factors this court ought to take into consideration in passing sentence.  I consider the following in the present set of case relevant in my assessment:

(1) Some of the monies are proceeds of an internet fraud, but there is no evidence to suggest that the defendant was party to the fraud, played any significant part in its perpetuation. Indeed, there was no evidence that she was aware of the fraud.

(2) There was no evidence of any international element, although there were in all five different foreign currencies were involved in Charge 1.

(3) There did not seem to be any planning on the part of the defendant, as according to the facts available she only allowed another person to use her account.

(4) The offences were committed within a very short period of time. For the 1^stcount, it took place within 18 days. For the 2^ndcount, five weeks.

10.It had been suggested by her lawyer that she only received a sum of $2,000 for the second offence, but she did not receive any money for the first.  This is not a relevant consideration because the court would only consider the amount lost rather than what the defendant received. 

11.The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKRLD 545 CA suggested the approximate parameter of sentences.  The most important consideration is the amount involved.  It was suggested that for a case involving 1 to $2 million, a sentence of 3 years would be appropriate; for 3 to $6 million, 4 years. 

12.In this case, the defendant’s involvement was arelevant chain in the scheme of things.  Although there is no evidence that she was involved in the planning of the scheme or in fact had any knowledge of the scheme itself, this only indicated the absence of aggravating factors, that she played her part and was an irrelevant chain for such crimes to be perpetuated. 

13.Having considered the above authorities and in particular, the amount involved, I would first adopt 5 years for the 1^stcount as a starting point; for the 2^ndcount, 2 years. 

14.I take into account of the Totality Principle, and that these are two separate offences although they are committed within a very short period of time.  In particular, the second offence, the act of money laundering in fact started within a few days after the account was opened, and these offences were committed within a short period of time, but the total amount which ran up to about 9 million, I ordered that 1year of the 2^ndcharge to run consecutive to the 1^st, making a total of 6 years’ imprisonment.  They are reduced to 4years to reflect her plea of guilty. 

Enhancement of Sentence

15.Pursuant to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, the prosecution applied to enhance the sentence by reason of the prevalence of this specified offence and the nature and extent of the harm caused to the community. 

16.In support of the application, the prosecution relied on the affirmation of Chief Inspector Lee Yiu Nam of the Hong Kong Police Force.  Chief Inspector Lee’s academic qualification, work history and his involvement in the investigation of relevant crime and participation in relevant local or overseas courses in money laundering had been set out in his affirmation.  The defence had no submission in respect of the application for enhancement and did not ask for the chief inspector to be tendered for cross-examination.  

17.Having read the affirmation, I am satisfied that Chief Inspector Lee had the relevant knowledge through his working experience and attendance of relevant training courses to be an expert witness of the offences in question. 

18.Chief Inspector Li stated that the present case is one of those what is known as “money laundering stooge”.  In most cases the stooges were recruited to open new account or accounts for the purpose of money laundering purpose.  Some of them would receive money as reward the sum simply lent their account. 

19.Chief Inspector Li also cited the statistics from the police department about the number of deception cases involving money laundering and also the amount lost.  A brief reading of these statistics show that the offence had been rampant and seemed to be on the rise.  For the first four months of this year, a total of 14,584 cases involving deception and money laundering.  The arrested person for the same period of time came up to 2,757.  The amount involved also saw a dramatic increase from 2020 to the first four months of this year.  For example, the amount of reported losses in 2020 was 552.88 million, whereas in the first four months of 2026, the amount has already come up to $432.49 million. 

20.Inspector Li also pointed out that offences of this kind and their prevalence interfere with the normal operation of the banking system.  It had also a negative effect on the reputation of Hong Kong as an international financial hub.  The offence also served as a shield to the masterminds, making it difficult if at all possible for police to identify them, and thereby encouraging further offences to take place. 

21.Having read the affirmation of Chief Inspector Li, I am satisfied that this kind of offence is prevalent and also has a profound adverse impact on the society.  I would adopt a 20 per cent increase of the sentence.  For 48 months, the 20 per cent is 9.6months, I would add 9 months to the 48 months, making a total of 57 months. 

22.As was suggested, the most relevant mitigation is that she pleaded guilty.  For this, I have already taken into account and made the necessary reduction. 

Mitigations

23.The defendant was born in Hong Kong.  She is aged 42.  She is a single mother, and her daughter is aged 12, now taken care of by her father.  She worked as a cleaner, making about $10,000 to $15,000 per month. 

24.I have taken into consideration of her background and the fact that she had a number of previous convictions, none of them are of an identical nature to the present one.  A number of her previous convictions are related to dishonesty, namely shoplifting, shop theft.  They were not sufficient to consider a defendant a repeated offender, nor can they be a factor to increase the sentence, but on the other hand, with her age and her record of previous convictions, there is no room for me to exercise my discretion of leniency in her benefit.  So in all, for the two offences, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 57 months.