HKSAR v. Tsang Kar Lun

DCCC 622/2025

[2026] HKDC 1571

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 622 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

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

Summary of Facts

2.On 29 and 8 December 2020 respectively, the defendant opened the bank accounts as particularized in Charges 1 and 2 ("the ICBC Account" and "the SCB Account").

Deception

3.Between May and July 2022, a U.S. resident surnamed Yu was deceived by an investment scam.  He followed the fraudster's instructions to transfer money to various bank accounts, including the ICBC Account.  His net monetary loss amounted to US$848,152, of which US$100,000 were transferred to the ICBC Account.

4.Between February and March 2023, two Hong Kong residents surnamed Chung and Yu Q were deceived by an investment scam.  They followed the fraudster's instructions to transfer money to various bank accounts, including the SCB Account.  Their net monetary loss amounted to HK$5,828,266 and HK$99,188.75 respectively, of which Chung had transferred HK$313,931 to the SCB Account; and Yu Q, HK$50,000.

Money laundering

Charge 1

5.Between 12 May and 14 July 2022, the ICBC Account received 12 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of HK$314,771 (from Macau and Zhuhai)  and a sum of US$100,000 (from Yu).  All deposits received were withdrawn by transfer on the day when the funds were received. 

Charge 2

6.Between 1 February and 2 March 2023, the SCB Account received 124 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of HK$1,752,217.76 (including a total sum of HK$363,931 from Chung and Yu Q).  All deposits received were withdrawn by transfer on the day when the funds were received or the following day. 

Arrest

7.On 21 July 2023, the police arrested the defendant.

8.In his video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that he had opened the ICBC Account.  The bank had issued statements of the ICBC Account to him by email.

Other evidence

9.The Inland Revenue Department has no record for the defendant for the 2021/22 and 2022/23 tax years.

Mitigation & Sentence

10.The defendant is 56 and has 10 conviction records involving 14 offences, none of which were related to "money laundering". Defence counsel Mr. Hui informed me that the defendant is married with 2 daughters. He was a lorry driver earning about $10,000 per month. In mitigation, Mr. Hui explained that the defendant was unemployed during the social events in 2019 and the pandemic. Owing to his financial hardship, he responded to a social media post advertising job opportunities to earn quick money. The defendant sold his bank accounts to an unknown person he had met online, despite suspecting that the arrangement might not be legitimate.

11.The prosecution has applied for an enhanced sentence pursuant to section 27(2)(c)  and (d)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap.455)  on the basis of prevalence as well as the nature and extent of harm caused to the community. Mr. Hui did not object.

12.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[1]."

13.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 20 July 2026. I am satisfied that in 2022 and 2023, 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.

14.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.

15.This is a typical case of money laundering by way of stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the deception perpetrated against the 3 victims, 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%.

16.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.[2]

17.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.

18.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…[3]

Charge 1

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

20.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that 2 aggregated sums of HK$314,771 and US$100,000 (from Yu; equivalent to approximately HK$780,000)  went through the ICBC Account within 2 months. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through the ICBC Account, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s)  of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

21.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 24 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 30 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

22.An aggregated sum of HK$1.7 million odd went through the SCB Account within a period of 1 month, of which a total sum of HK$363,931 came from Chung and Yu Q. I also adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 24 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 30 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

23.The grand total received by the ICBC Account and the SCB Account was roughly HK$2.8 million. I consider a global starting point of 42 months imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 28 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 35 months. Hence, I order 5 months in Charge 2 to run consecutively to Charge 1.