HKSAR v. Tsang Wai Man

DCCC 1005/2025

[2026] HKDC 1559

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1005 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Money laundering". In short, he "lent" his 2 bank accounts to someone.

Summary of Facts

2.On 11 April 2022 and 2 March 2021 respectively, the defendant opened the bank accounts as particularized in Charges 1 and 2 (Accounts 1 and 2).  He was the sole signatory of both accounts.

Deception

3.In May 2022, Madam Yao (PW1)  met someone (WP1)  online.  In June 2022, WP1 lured PW1 into investing in cryptocurrency.  PW1 opened an account with a bogus investment platform.  She then transferred money to 3 different bank accounts, which aggregated to a sum of $3,360,000 (of which $1,710,000 was transferred to Account 2).  When PW1 was unable to withdraw her money from the bogus investment platform, she realized that it was a scam and alerted the police.

4.In June 2022, PWs 2 to 11 were deceived by employment scams (disguised as "boost-sale jobs").  They made payments to various bank accounts including Account 1.  When they did not receive their commission, they realized that they were deceived.  Their net monetary loss amounted to about $7.55 million in total.

Money laundering

Charge 1

5.Between 11 and 19 April 2022, Account 1 received 1,027 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $4,225,421.56.  An aggregated sum of $4,221,359 was withdrawn by 319 transactions. When Account 1 was closed by the bank on 24 June 2022, it had a balance of $4,062.56.

Charge 2

6.Between 14 January and 13 May 2022, Account 2 received monthly payments from the Social Welfare Department.

7.Between 2 and 4 June 2022, Account 2 received 17 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $2,583,500.  An aggregated sum of $2,583,471.44 was withdrawn by 68 transactions.

Arrest

8.On 22 July 2022, the defendant was arrested for "conspiracy to commit money laundering" in relation to Account 2.  On 21 October 2022, he was arrested for "money laundering" in relation to Account 1.

9.In his video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he opened Account 2 to receive welfare money.  In May or June 2022, he met a friend (WP2)  when playing basketball.  WP2 offered to borrow the defendant's ATM card for $2,000.  He agreed and gave the ATM card of Account 2 and its password to WP2.  The defendant claimed that he believed WP2 had borrowed his ATM card to receive payments for WP2's company.  WP2 later returned the ATM card by leaving it in the defendant's mailbox.  The defendant also received a letter from the bank stating that his welfare money was returned to the payer because Account 2 was suspended.

Other evidence

10.Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals, as well as the daily balances of Accounts 1 and 2, the police found typical features of money laundering.

11.The Inland Revenue Department has no record for the defendant for the 2020/21 and 2021/22 tax years.  The defendant's known background and income are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by Accounts 1 and 2.

Mitigation & Sentence

12.The defendant is 41 and has 8 conviction records involving a total of 11 offences, none of which were related to "money laundering". Defence counsel Ms. Yue informed me that the defendant is single and currently resides at a halfway house operated by an NGO. He has part-time jobs and is supervised by a social worker.

13.In mitigation, Ms. Yue submitted that the defendant has been suffering from depression for almost 20 years. He is on medication and attends regularly his psychiatric follow-up appointments. His current social worker speaks favourably of him. Ms. Yue also explained that the defendant committed the present offences because he wanted to earn some quick money. Although his video recorded interview covered only Account 2, the defendant lent Account 1 to a friend in the same manner.

14.The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant to section 27(2)(c), (d)  and (e)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap.455)  on the basis of prevalence; the nature and extent of harm caused to the community; and the nature and extent of the total benefit accruing to any person. Ms. Yue did not object[1].

15.I bear in mind the Court of Appeal's decision in HKSAR v Xu Mai Qing CACC 464/2005, whereas Yeung JA (as he then was)  held "Under section 27(11)  of OSCO, what the prosecution has to prove is the prevalence of the offence, not the increase in the number of such offences[2]."

16.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 21 July 2026. I am satisfied that in 2022, deception-related money laundering cases were prevalent in Hong Kong in terms of the number of cases as well as the total value of monetary loss.

17.There is clear and cogent evidence before me that money laundering through bank accounts opened by "ML Stooges" remains widespread in Hong Kong today. The court must send a clear message to the general public that people who play the role of "ML Stooge" will receive severe punishment, so that there is a deterrent effect. When there are few or no willing "ML Stooges", criminal activities which rely on their bank accounts will fail.

18.This is a typical case of money laundering by way of stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the deceptionperpetrated against PWs 1-11, such scams would have been meaningless without his bank accounts. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given his role, the total sums which went through his 2 accounts and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

19.The Court of Appeal in SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 held :-

Generally, the sentence for "money laundering" offences should mainly reflect the amount of "black money" laundered and not the benefit obtained by the defendant or others. The reason being that it is very difficult to prove the benefit concerned, and in most "money laundering" cases, there may not be evidence to show from what indictable offence the "black money" are in fact derived. Of course, if there is information to prove that the "black money" is originated from serious crimes, including drug trafficking, kidnap and blackmail, illegal human trafficking, other organized crimes, etc. or the defendant's benefit is huge, then the sentence should be adjusted upward.[3]

20.In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principles laid down in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 and HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33. I have also borne in mind the amounts of money involved, the duration of the offences, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as his personal circumstances.

21.In SJ v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104, Yeung V-P held :-

Neither the fact that the "illicit/black money"was actually not derived from an indictable offence nor the defendant's ignorance of the actual source of the "illicit/black money" is necessarily a valid mitigating factor…[4]

Charge 1

22.I accept there is no evidence showing that the defendant had knowledge of or was involved in any predicate offence (including the scams perpetrated against PWs 2 to 11). As the sole owner of Account 1, he should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

23.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of $4.2 million odd went through Account 1 within 9 days. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through Account 1, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s)  of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

24.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment[5]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

25.An aggregated sum of $2,583,500 went through Account 2 within 3 days, of which $1,710,000 came from PW1. I adopt a starting point of 3.5 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 28 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 35 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

26.The grand total received by Accounts 1 and 2 was roughly $6.8 million. I consider a global starting point of 51 months' imprisonment appropriate and just[6]. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 34 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 42 months and 2 weeks. Hence, I order 2 months and 2 weeks in Charge 2 to run consecutively to Charge 1.