HKSAR v. Li Tangbin

DCCC 1227/2025

[2026] HKDC 1344

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1227 OF 2025

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The Defendant pleaded guilty to 3 Charges of 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. The property dealt with was HK$854,292 (Charge 1), HK$1,277,363 (Charge 2), and HK$5,000 and US$189,939.29 (the total amount equivalent to approximately HK$1,484,627) (Charge 3). The total amount of money laundered for Charges 1 to 3 amounted to an equivalent of approximately HK$3,621,282.

2.Between 31^st July and 22^nd August 2024, 9 victims (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the Victims”) were individually approached by unknown persons online and were fraudulently induced to deposit money to specific bank accounts.  They suffered a total loss of HK$5,744,154 and US$130,000 (the total loss equivalent to approximately HK$6,758,154), including HK$669,163 and US$79,963.96 (the total amount equivalent to approximately HK$1,291,282.61) which was paid to the following bank accounts belonging to the Defendant:

(a) HK$170,000 was paid to the Defendant’s Hang Seng Bank account (Account 1);

(b) HK$499,163 was paid to the Defendant’s BOC account (Account 2); and

(c) US$79,963.96 was paid to the Defendant’s Standard Chartered Bank account (Account 3); and

(d) the Defendant was the sole account owner and signatory of Accounts 1 to 3.

3.Account 1 was opened by the Defendant in person on 31 July 2024. Between 31 July and 13 August 2024, Account l had 14 deposits totalling HK$854,292 (Charge 1) and 19 withdrawals totalling HK$854,040.  8 depositors and 1 recipient were identified. A mirror transaction pattern was observed and the balance at the end of each day was generally low. The account became inactive after 13 August 2024.

4.Account 2 was opened in person by the Defendant on 31 July 2024. Between 4 and 19 August 2024, Account 2 had 33 deposits totalling HK$1,277,363 (Charge 2) and 67 withdrawals totalling the same amount.  14 depositors and 1 recipient were identified. A mirror transaction pattern was observed and the balance at the end of each day was generally low. The account became inactive after 19 August 2024.

5.Account 3 was opened by the Defendant in person on 9 August 2024. On the Opening Mandate, the defendant claimed to be a “manager / executive” with a monthly income of HK$40,000.

6.Account 3 had a USD sub-account and a HKD sub-account. Between 9 and 22 August 2024, the USD sub-account had 4 deposits totalling US$189,939.29 and the HKD sub-account had 1 cash deposit of HK$5,000 (Charge 3). All of the funds in the USD sub-account were transferred to the HKD sub-account before being further dissipated in 9 withdrawals totalling HK$1,478,789.09.  2 depositors and 6 recipients were identified.  A mirror pattern was observed and the balance at the end of each day was generally low. The account became inactive after 22 August 2024.

7.The Defendant was the holder of mainland two-way entry and exit permit. The Defendant’s travel records show that he had entered Hong Kong for 1 day each on 31 July and 9 August 2024, when Accounts 1 to 3 were opened.

8.On 25 December 2024, the Defendant was arrested upon entering Hong Kong at Lok Ma Chau Check Point. He remained silent under caution and was released on police bail. He later jumped police bail and was re-arrested on 30 May 2025. He remained silent under caution.

9.In his cautioned video-recorded interviews, the Defendant claimed to be a security guard with a monthly income of several thousand dollars. He admitted opening Accounts 1 to 3 for the purpose of making cryptocurrency investments, although he had no knowledge in this subject.  He claimed to have lost all his bank cards in Shenzhen but had never reported the matter to the police or the banks. He denied any knowledge of the transactions in the accounts.

The Defendant’s Antecedent Statement and Mitigation

10.The Defendant is a mainland resident.  He is 42 years old and has a clear record in Hong Kong.  He has received primary level education in the mainland. He had been divorced, and has an 81 years old mother and a son aged 11 years old.  He was a security guard in the mainland before his arrest, with monthly salary of about RMB5,000.

11.The Defence states that the Defendant had in fact opened Accounts 1 to 3 for a person he had met in the Mainland in return for a total of RMB6,000, which was the only personal benefit he had obtained.  He had surrendered access to the accounts since. 

12.Defence urges the Court to accept that there is no evidence indicating that the Defendant had knowledge of the predicate offences.  Not all sums dealt with by the 3 accounts originated from the Victims.  The offending period was about 2 weeks for each Charge; and that there was no sophisticated planning on the Defendant’s part, who only acted as a stooge.  It is also submitted that there is no evidence of an organized criminal syndicate or international element.

Legal Principles on Sentencing

13.In HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal indicated factors which should be taken into account when sentencing money laundering charges:-

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

(b) the state of knowledge of the offender: the question of knowledge of the offender as to the nature of the predicate offence is relevant in that the person who knows the nature of the predicate offence is more culpable than the person who does not;

(c) An international dimension will always be a significant aggravating feature;

(d) The sophistication of the offence, including the degree of planning and whether deceit is practised to achieve the objective;

(e) offence is committed by or on behalf of an organized criminal syndicate is an aggravating fact;

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

(g) it will be an aggravating feature where the offender continues to launder funds after he has discovered 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 role of the offender and the acts performed by him.

14.The Defence cited HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545.  The Court of Appeal stated that there is no sentencing guidelines for this type of cases.  The Court should take into the account the following factors:-

(a) The amount of money involved and not the amount of benefit received by a defendant as a major consideration;

(b) A defendant’s level of participation and the number of occasions on which he is involved in the money laundering activities are relevant factors;

(c) If the relevant indictable offence can be identified, the court may take into account the sentence imposed on the indicatable 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; and

(e) The length of time the offence lasted.

15.The authorities indicate a general range of starting points for the amount of money dealt with, which starts from 3 years where the money involved is between $1 to 2 million; 4 years for amounts between $3 and 6 million, and over 5 years where it is above $10 million.  I accept that the above are not straitjackets and that the facts of each case must be considered.

Sentencing Considerations

16.I agree with the Defence that there is no evidence that the Defendant knew anything about the predicate offences, and that the defendant was merely executing orders.  The presence and nature of the predicate offence, ie online fraud, must, however, be considered.  The deposits into the 3 accounts accounted for about 19% of the total loss of the Victims, and about 35% of the total amount dealt with in the 3 accounts.

17.I am of the view that there was obviously an organized crime syndicate, which engaged in sophisticated planning, in recruiting the Defendant from the mainland to cross the borders to come to Hong Kong on 2 occasions to open a total of 3 bank accounts.  There is definitely international element in this case, as a mainlander is being brought in to take part in the money laundering scheme.  These are all matters which make the case a more serious one.

18.Having considered the Defendant’s guilty plea, clear record in Hong Kong, and all the mitigation involved, bearing in mind the analysis and findings above, including the proportion of the sums from the predicate offences in relation to the money dealt with, the number of transactions involved in the 3 accounts, and the duration of dealing, I shall adopt starting points of 30 months, 39 months and 41 months for Charges 1 to 3 respectively. 1/3 discount will be applied due to the guilty pleas.  The sentences for Charges 1 to 3 pre-enhancement will be:

Charge 1: 20 months

Charge 2: 26 months

Charge 3: 27 months

Enhancement of Sentence

19.The Court had been asked by the Prosecution to enhance the sentence of the Defendant under section 27 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.  The Prosecution had furnished information to the court on the following matters under section 27(2) of the said Ordinance:

(c) the prevalence of that specified offence; and

(d) the nature and extent of any harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of that specified offence.

20.Notice of intention to furnish information pursuant to section 27(2) of the said Ordinance had been duly filed and served on 11^th September 2025.

21.I am satisfied that the Prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt of the information stated in the witness statement of Chief Inspector Li Yiu Nam dated 30 June 2024.  I will therefore enhance the sentence of Charges 1, 2, and 3 by 20%. 

22.The enhanced sentences are:

Charge 1: 24 months

Charge 2: 31 months

Charge 3: 32 months

23.As the total amount of money dealt with under these charges amounts to an equivalent of approximately HK$3,621,282, I have considered that a global starting point of 55 months is appropriate.  Applying 1/3 discount, the global sentence after plea should be 36 months.  With enhancement of 20%, the global enhanced sentence should be 43 months.  I will therefore order that 5 months of Charge 1 and 6 months of Charge 2 shall be served consecutively to the sentence of Charge 3.  The total sentence for these charges shall be 43 months’ imprisonment.