HKSAR V Peng Zhenghui

DCCC 37/2026

[2026] HKDC 1604

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 37 OF 2026

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

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

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

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

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

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to 6 counts 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 (“OSCO”) (commonly known as “Money Laundering” offence). He admitted the Amended Summary of Facts and was convicted accordingly.

2.Pursuant to section 27(2) of OSCO, the prosecution furnished information concerning the prevalence of the use of stooge accounts in the commission of, and harm caused to the community by, the Money Laundering offences. The prosecution submits and relies on the witness statement of Chief Inspector Li Yiu-nam (“CIP Li”) of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment of the Financial Intelligence and Investigation Bureau and the Secretariat of the Money Laundering Expert Cadre, dated 27 July 2026, in support of its application to enhance sentence in respect of all 6 counts of Money Laundering offences.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The predicate offences

3.Between 3 April 2025 and 27 April 2025, 10 victims fell prey to online scams and transferred a total of HK$710,100 into the following 5 accounts held under the defendant’s name:

(a) BOC account numbered 012‑887‑2‑078228‑3 (“Account 1”). The sum involved was HK$135,500, being part of the proceeds to which Charge 1 relates.

(b) PAOB account numbered 7522002190237 (“Account 2”). The sum involved was HK$100,000, being part of the proceeds to which Charge 2 relates.

(c) BOC account numbered 012‑887‑2‑078575‑8 (“Account 4”). The sum involved was HK$15,000, being part of the proceeds to which Charge 4 relates.

(d) HSB account numbered 203663075888 (“Account 5”). The sum involved was HK$253,100, being part of the proceeds to which Charge 5 relates.

(e) Airstar account numbered 395882000143876 (“Account 6”). The sum involved was HK$206,500, being part of the proceeds to which Charge 6 relates.

Charge 1 (Account 1)

4.Account 1 was opened on 18 March 2025 by the defendant with his PRC Resident Identity Card and Two‑way Permit (collectively “ID Documents”).

5.Account 1 was only active between 7 April 2025 and 10 April 2025. During the said period, there were 33 deposits totalling HK$482,823.45 and 26 withdrawals totalling HK$482,624.65. All the withdrawals were made by transfer.

Charge 2 (Account 2)

6.Account 2 was opened by the defendant on 18 March 2025 with his ID Documents. A selfie of the defendant was also taken.

7.Account 2 was only active between 22 March 2025 and 17 April 2025. During the said period, there were 8 deposits totalling HK$314 120.03 and 11 withdrawals totalling HK$314,055. Test‑in money was observed.

Charge 3 (Account 3)

8.SCB account numbered 429‑8‑515813‑1 (“Account 3”) was opened by the defendant on 18 March 2025 with his Two‑way Permit. The defendant was reported to be a full‑time salesperson with a monthly salary of HK$15,000.

9.Account 3 was only active between 18 March 2025 and 8 April 2025. During the said period, there were 3 deposits totalling HK$1,690,200 and 5 withdrawals totalling HK$1,689,977.01. All the withdrawals were made by transfer.

Charge 4 (Account 4)

10.Account 4 was opened on 21 March 2025 under the defendant’s name. The defendant’s PRC Resident Identity Card was produced to the bank.

11.Account 4 was only active between 7 April 2025 and 9 April 2025. During the said period, there were 3 deposits totalling HK$65,000 and all the money was transferred to Account 1.

Charge 5 (Account 5)

12.Account 5 was opened on 20 March 2025 under the defendant’s name. The defendant’s ID Documents were produced to the bank.

13.Account 5 was only active between 20 March 2025 and 8 April 2025. During the said period, there were 26 deposits totalling HK$454,388 and 29 withdrawals totalling HK$454 197.81. Most transactions occurred between 3 April 2025 and 8 April 2025.

Charge 6 (Account 6)

14.Account 6 was opened on 18 March 2025 under the defendant’s name. The defendant’s PRC Resident Identity Card was scanned and three selfies were taken.

15.Account 6 was only active between 31 March 2025 and 27 April 2025. During the said period, there were 10 deposits totalling HK$344,903. All the money was transferred out by FPS shortly after being deposited.

16.The defendant was the sole account signatory for all 6 accounts. The total deposits made into the accounts were HK$3,351,434.48. After deducting the sum of HK$65,000 transferred from Account 4 to Account 1, the net deposit was HK$3,286,434.48. Mirror‑transaction patterns were evident across all 6 accounts.

Arrest and Cautioned Interview

17.On 19 May 2025, the defendant was arrested and cautioned when he was entering Hong Kong via the Lok Ma Chau Control Point.

18.In video‑recorded cautioned interviews conducted respectively on 19 May 2025, 3 July 2025 and 12 September 2025, the defendant stated, inter alia that:

(a) He had not completed primary‑school education. His occupation was fish‑farming with a monthly income of RMB 5,000.

(b) He got to know a person on an online platform. He was asked to open bank accounts for a reward of RMB 1,000 per account. He confirmed that all 6 accounts were opened by him. In March 2025, he either placed the bank cards on somewhere in Futian for collection or sent the bank cards to the unknown person by post. However, he did not receive any reward payment.

(c) He came to Hong Kong on this occasion to cancel the bank accounts. He was worried that he would be in big trouble if the delay went on too long.

19.Movement records show the defendant entered Hong Kong at 09:29 hours on 18 March 2025 and departed at 18:46 hours on 20 March 2025.

20.The defendant admits that, at all material times, he, together with other persons unknown, dealt with the following payments: HK$482,823.45 for Charge 1, HK$314,120.03 for Charge 2, HK$1,690,200 for Charge 3, HK$65,000 for Charge 4, HK$454,388 for Charge 5, and HK$344,903 for Charge 6. He knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that those sum, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.

MITIGATION

21.The defendant is 34 years old and single. He received education up to primary 3 in Mainland China.He worked as a technician after graduation and was unemployed at the time of the arrest. Prior to his arrest, he was living with his parents in Mainland China. The defendant has been remanded in jail custody since 19 May 2025. He has no previous convictions. In the course of the mitigation, Ms. Ho submitted a mitigation letter handwritten by the defendant. In gist, the defendant expressed deep remorse and felt guilty for the financial losses suffered by numerous innocent victims. He acknowledged that furnishing his personal bank accounts to third parties had facilitated money-laundering activities by others. As the sole bread-winner for his family, he prayed for leniency and a chance to turn over a new leaf.

22.In mitigation, Ms. Ho, counsel for the defendant, urges this court to consider the following mitigating factors:-

(a) There is no evidence that the defendant knew or was involved in the predicate offences;

(b) There is no evidence that the defendant personally operated the 6 accounts or was aware of the volume of monies laundered through those 6 accounts;

(c) Each of the bank accounts was operated for a very short period only;

(d) The defendant played only a minor role and was merely a money-laundering stooge within the offending chain;

(e) The defendant did attempt to come to Hong Kong with a genuine intention to close the 6 accounts, albeit too late.

23.Further, in the course of the mitigation, Ms. Ho fairly accepts that the court may draw the only irresistible inference that, although the defendant did not personally operate the accounts and was unaware of the actual volume of money-laundering activities passing through those accounts, by surrendering his accounts to others in return for monetary rewards, the defendant agreed and authorized other culprits to operate the accounts on his behalf for money-laundering activities. After consideration, I accepted Ms. Ho’s submission and find that there was an agreement between the defendant and other person unknown for money laundering. The defendant together with other person unknown jointly dealt with the money as particularized in the offences.

24.Ms. Ho invites the court to adopt a starting point of no more than 45 months’ imprisonment and to impose a concurrent sentence for majority of the counts.

25.Ms. Ho does not challenge the witness statement of CIP Li. Ms. Ho submits that the statistic provided by CIP Li demonstrates the amount involved for deception and money laundering cases had gradually declined, and despite the large number of cases, it is also on a decline from 31.38% recorded in 2020; to 75.10% in 2024 and to 71% in 2025. On this basis, she submits that an enhancement of 20% would be sufficient in the present case.

CONSIDERATION OF SENTENCE

26.I have carefully considered the facts of the case, the personal background of the defendant, the detailed written and oral submissions from Ms. Ho, counsel for the Defence, the defendant’s mitigation letter, the witness statement of CIP Li in support of the application tendered by the prosecution pursuant to section 27(2) of OSCO, the relevant case authorities, and the totality principle.

27.The maximum penalty for Money Laundering offence is imprisonment for 14 years and a fine of HK$5,000,000.

28.The Court of Appeal has not laid down sentencing guidelines for Money Laundering offences, given the highly fact-specific nature of each case. Nevertheless, money laundering is a very serious offence for which a deterrent sentence is ordinarily required. As a general rule, a person convicted of money laundering, even if a first offender, imposing a term of immediate custodial imprisonment is the only appropriate sentencing option.

29.In Secretary for Justice v Xie Zhijian (謝志健), CAAR  4/2024, [2025] HKCA 911, at §48, the Court of Appeal observed that HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi (許有益) [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 merely set out a range of monetary figures and illustrative starting points from the cited authorities. In Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung (雲國强 ) [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the Court of Appeal indicated that “where the tainted monies involved range from $1 million to $2 million, the starting point is approximately 3 years’ imprisonment; for $3 million to $6 million, approximately 4 years’ imprisonment; and for sums over $10 million, a term exceeding 5 years may be appropriate”. That passage represents only a summary of the broad sentencing brackets illustrated by the authorities cited in Hsu Yu Yi.

30.At §50 of Xie Zhijian, the Court of Appeal emphasized that a trial judge must, having regard to the mischief targeted by the relevant ordinance, apply his sentencing experience and his overall impression of the case to assess the appropriate sentence on the unique facts of each individual case.

31.At §§ 51 and 52 of Xie Zhijian, the Court of Appeal further held that whilst the amount of money laundered involved is an important consideration, it is not the sole consideration. Other relevant sentencing considerations include:

(i) The nature and usual sentencing range for the predicate offence generating the tainted proceeds;

(ii) Whether the defendant had knowledge of the underlying predicate offence;

(iii) The presence of any international element;

(iv)  Whether sophisticated steps, planning or fraudulent devices were employed;

(v) Any involvement by criminal syndicates;

(vi) The number of transactions and duration of the offending conduct;

(vii) Whether the defendant continued to participate after acquiring knowledge of the nature of the predicate offence;

(viii) The defendant’s role and any reward or benefit received.

32.Further, in HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, at § 40(8), the Court of Appeal stated that:-

“The sentencing court should have regard to the role of the offender and the acts performed by him. In this regard, the director of a laundering operation or scheme should attract a greater sentence than a person engaged by him although sentences should be sufficient to deter those who might be prevailed upon by directing minds. In the case of a person down the chain, the court will wish to have regard to whether a benefit has been received and if so the nature and size of the benefit. But within the category of persons down the chain there will gradations of culpability. So for example the drug addict or petty crook who is paid a small sum to open an account and hand over its operation to another with no more participation and no more knowledge than that it is going to be used for some sort of crime is much less culpable than an offender of a different sort not “used” in that way.”

33.In the present case, I accept that the defendant was not involved in the predicate online-scam offences and his role was merely a money laundering stooge. There is no sophisticated operation involved.

34.I also accept that he did genuinely come to Hong Kong intending to close the accounts and that he has no previous conviction. However, these are not mitigating factors of any weight or force given the serious nature of the Money Laundering offences.

35.Further, the present case is aggravated by the fact that the defendant opened the 6 accounts within a very short period of time. He opened Accounts 1, 2, 3 and 6 on 18 March 2025; Account 5 on 20 March 2025; and Account 4 on 21 March 2025. It is further admitted by the Defence in court that Accounts 2, 3, 5 and 6 were opened in Hong Kong, and Accounts 1 and 4 were opened via online. He is a mainlander and a Two-Way Permit holder. According to his video-recorded cautioned interviews, it is clear that he acted on instructions from an unknown individual whom he had met online to open the bank accounts with monetary rewards, solely for the purpose of committing the present offences. It is hard to believe, and an affront to common-sense, that he would take the trouble to come to Hong Kong and open the 4 accounts without first receiving the agreed reward of RMB 1,000 per account. Nevertheless, the rewards were in insignificant value, and whether or not he actually received them would neither lessen nor aggravate his culpability.

36.Although, there is no direct evidence that the defendant personally operated the 6 accounts or was aware of the volume of monies laundered through those 6 accounts, he allowed the fraudsters or mastermind of the predicate online-scam offences to use his accounts freely on numerous occasions for more than a month. The defendant admitted that he, together with other persons unknown, dealt with the total sum of HK$ 3,351,434.48, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that these amounts of money, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.

37.As to the duration and number of transactions of each offence. Charge 1 involved 33 deposits and 26 withdrawals over 4 days. The money involved was around HK$482,823.45. Charge 2 involved 8 deposits and 11 withdrawals over 27 days. The money involved was around HK$314,120.03. Charge 3 involved 3 deposits and 5 withdrawals over 22 days. The money involved was around HK$1,690,200. Charge 4 involved 3 deposits and all the money was transferred to Account 1. The money involved was around HK$65,000. Charge 5 involved 26 deposits and 29 withdrawals over 20 days. The money involved was around HK$454,388. Charge 6 involved 10 deposits and all the money was transferred out by FPS shortly after being deposited. The money involved was around HK$344,903.

38.Having considered the significant features of the case, the overall impression, the mitigation and the totality principle, I adopt a global approach with an overall starting of 4 years’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount for his timely guilty plea and the overall sentence is reduced to 32 months’ imprisonment. There are no other mitigating factors warranting further reduction.

Enhancement of sentence pursuant to section 27(2) OSCO

39.I have carefully considered the information provided by CIP Li. The statistics cover the period between 2020 and January-June 2026. Pursuant to Table A of his witness statement, the use of money-laundering stooge remains prominent. In 2020, among the 2,422 arrested persons, only 31.38% (760 persons) were stooges. In 2024, among the 10,496 arrested persons, 75.10% (7,883 persons) were stooges. In 2025, among the 7,542 arrested persons, 71.00% (5,355 persons) were stooges. In January-June 2026, among the 4,295 arrested persons, 73.48% (3,156 persons) were stooges.

40.I am satisfied that the use of money-laundering stooges is still high in both figures and proportion. Although the number of stooges arrested has slightly dropped from 2024 to January-June 2026. The trend of using stooge accounts is still very prevalent in the commissions of the Money Laundering offences albeit all the publicity work.

41.Pursuant to Table B stated in CIP Li’s witness statement, for the period from 2022 to January -June 2026, the amount of reported losses and/or proceeds laundered and use of stooge accounts in detected deception and money laundering cases remain substantial and alarming. Reported monetary losses exceeded HK$4,400 million in 2024, exceeded HK$3,900 million in 2025 and exceeded 1,300 million in January- June 2026. Notwithstanding a downward trend in those figures, the absolute magnitudes remain very large.

42.Further, paragraph 18 of CIP Li’s witness statement pinpoints that the prevalence of stooges for money laundering activities has hampered the anti-money laundering regime in Hong Kong. For instance, it interferes with the normal operation of the banking system and harms the reputation of Hong Kong as a well-known international financial hub. People on low income or with little appreciation of criminal consequences are particularly vulnerable to inducements by the culprits to surrender their bank accounts for monetary reward.

43.I am also satisfied that the prevalent use of stooges in money laundering offences has caused considerable harm to the community either directly or indirectly.

44.Having carefully considered the information furnished by CIP Li, I am satisfied that the prosecution has made out the statutory grounds for sentence enhancement under section 27(2) of OSCO. Having regard to all the circumstances of the present case, an enhancement of 25% is appropriate. As a result, after the enhancement by 25%, the overall sentence is increased by 8 months to 40 months.

45.This overall sentence is achieved by the followings:-

Charge (money involved)	Starting Point	After One-third discount	After25% Enhancement
Charge 1 (HK$482,823.45)	18 months	12 months	15 months
Charge 2 (HK$314,120.03)	15 months	10 months	12.5 months
Charge 3 (HK$1,690,200)	30 months	20 months	25 months
Charge 4 (HK$65,000)	9 months	6 months	7.5 months
Charge 5 (HK$454,388)	18 months	12 months	15 months
Charge 6 (HK$344,903)	15 months	10 months	12.5 months

46.I order that 3 months of Charges 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 shall run consecutively to each other and to the 25 months of Charge 3 making it a total of 40 months’ imprisonment.