HKSAR v. Tsang Kar Lun

DCCC 1326/2025

[2026] HKDC 1572

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1326 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to a charge of "Money laundering". In short, he "sold" his bank account to someone.

Summary of Facts

2.On 8 September 2020, the defendant opened the bank account as particularized in the charge ("the NCB Account").  He was the sole signatory of that account. In the opening mandate, the defendant claimed to be a driver, earning about $10,001 to $25,000 per month.

3.On 14 September 2020, the defendant visited a branch of the bank to amend his email address.

4.Between 8 September and 1 December 2020, the NCB Account received 87 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $9,189,647.77.  All deposits received were withdrawn by transfer on the day when the funds were received or the following day.

5.Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals, as well as the daily balances of the NCB Account, the police found typical features of money laundering.  The defendant's known background and income are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by the NCB Account.

Mitigation & Sentence

6.The defendant is 56 and has 10 conviction records involving 14 offences, none of which were related to "money laundering". Prior to the present offence, he only had 7 conviction records involving 9 offences. 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.

7.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 account to an unknown person he had met online, despite suspecting that the arrangement might not be legitimate.

8.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.

9.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]."

10.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 20 July 2026. I am satisfied that in 2020, 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.

11.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.

12.This is a typical case of money laundering by way of a stooge bank account. Although there is no evidence of any predicate offence involved in the present case, based on the number of deposits received by the NCB Account, the total amount which passed through it, and its nature as a repository of funds, I draw the irresistible inference that the deposits must have come from scams of some kind. Such scams would have been meaningless without the NCB Account. Given the defendant's role, the total sum which went through his bank account and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

13.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]

14.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 amount of money involved, the duration of the offence, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as his personal circumstances.

15.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]

16.I accept there is no evidence of any predicate offence, or that the defendant had knowledge of or was involved in any such offence. As the sole owner of the NCB Account, he should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

17.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of almost $9.2 million went through the NCB Account within a period of 3 months. By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through the NCB Account, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s)  of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

18.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 54 months' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 36 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 45 months' imprisonment.

19.Moments ago, I have just sentenced the defendant to 35 months imprisonment for 2 charges of "Money laundering" in DCCC 622/2025. He committed the present offence roughly 2.5 years before the other 2 offences. The grand total received by the defendant's 3 bank accounts in both cases was slightly over $12 million. For that amount, I consider a starting point of 63 months' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas and the 25% enhancement, the final sentence should be 52 months (after rounding off). Hence, I order 17 months in this case to run consecutively to the sentences in DCCC 622/2025. In other words, the total prison term for both cases is 52 months.