HKSAR v. Wong Kwok Hung, Sam
|
DCCC 1343/2025 [2026] HKDC 1619 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 1343 OF 2025 --------------------------------------
--------------------------------------
-------------------------------------- REASONS FOR SENTENCE -------------------------------------- 1.D pleaded guilty to two counts of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (“money laundering”), contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455 (“OSCO”). Facts 2.A victim of a telephone deception case (“V”) was lured by scammers into depositing funds into various accounts, including depositing HK$ 1 million into the account particularised in Charge 1 (“Charge 1 Account”). Charge 1 Account 3.On 16 November 2022, D opened this account with the Bank of East Asia. He was the sole signatory of this account. On the account opening mandate, D claimed to be working in the storage, warehouse and logistics industry. 4.Bank documents show that between 16 November 2022 and 18 December 2022, there were 9 deposits totalling $1,480,001 (including $1 million from V) and 13 withdrawals totalling $1,480,000. Charge 2 Account 5.On 20 July 2020, D opened this account with ZA Bank Limited. He was the sole signatory of this account. On the account opening mandate, D claimed to be working in the manufacturing industry, earning $8,500 per month. 6.Bank documents show that between 13 July 2022 and 15 August 2022, there were 138 deposits totalling $2,228,318.12, which was all withdrawn by 131 transactions. 7.For both accounts, money laundering hallmarks were observed in the transaction patterns, such as mirror pattern, quick speed of fund dissipation, large amount and number of daily deposits and/or withdrawals, and low balance at the end of the period. 8.D was arrested on 19 December 2022 in relation to Charge 1, and on 18 May 2023 in relation to Charge 2. 9.D now admits that at all material times, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the properties particularised in Charges 1 and 2 represented proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with those properties. Defendant’s Background 10.D is 62 years old. He is married but has separated with his wife for over 20 years. He has no children. He lived on his own and relied on public assistance prior to his arrest. 11.He has 30 previous convictions, none of them were for offences identical to the present charges. Mitigation 12.Defence counsel Mr Gordon Wong asked the court to note that: (i) each of the two offences lasted for about a month; (ii) Charge 1 happened immediately after the opening of the Charge 1 Account and this charge involved about $1.5 million; (iii) Charge 2 happened almost 2 years after the opening of the Charge 2 Account and this charge involved about $2.2 million; (iv) the two charges took place within a few months of each other; (v) the total amount involved in both charges is around $3.7 million; (vi) there is no suggestion that D took part in or had knowledge of the predicate offence, nor is there any indication of an international element; (vii) D has no previous similar conviction; and (viii) D pleaded guilty to both charges at the earliest opportunity. 13.Counsel referred to HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 for some of the significant considerations in sentencing for this type of offence. He pointed out that there are no sentencing guidelines for money laundering cases, and referred to the sentences passed or approved by the Court of Appeal in the following cases for reference:
14.Mr Wong submitted that while an individual sentence must be passed for each charge, it would be wise to work out a global sentence to reflect D’s overall criminality. Counsel suggested that a starting point of around 3 years should be sufficient to reflect such criminality. 15.Counsel did not oppose the application for the enhancement of sentence under OSCO. He referred to HKSAR v Tam Wai Pio [1998] 2 HKLRD 949 for the steps to take in the enhancement exercise, and to HKSAR v Chung Chi King CACC 504/2001 to point out that it is prevalence at the time of sentencing that the court should be concerned with in such an exercise. 16.Counsel referred to a number of recent District Court cases in support of his submission that enhancements ranging from 20% to one-third have been adopted in those decisions. 17.On the question of totality of sentence, Mr Wong drew the Court’s attention to the facts that D is now serving a total sentence of 3 years 2 months’ imprisonment in respect of 2 offences he was convicted of on 10 April 2025 in DCCC 475/2023, and that D will have served that sentence by 27 April 2027 which is 7 months 26 days from today. Mr Wong submitted that when considering the total sentence in respect of the present case and case DCCC 475/2023, any concurrent sentence that this Court can pass cannot be longer than 7 months 26 days. Any concurrent period longer than that would make the calculation of D’s prison term unworkable for the Correctional Services. Sentencing considerations 18.Money laundering is a serious offence which attracts a maximum sentence of 14 years’ imprisonment. 19.It is a serious offence as it is an attempt to legitimise proceeds from criminal activities. Successful deterrents against money laundering could be effective measures against crime. No guidelines for sentence of such an offence have been laid down as the crime can be committed in a variety of ways and there is a wide range of culpability. 20.According to Hsu Yu Yi, the factors to be considered in sentencing for this offence are: (i) the amount of money involved is a major consideration; (ii) the offender’s level of participation; (iii) the sentence imposed on the predicate offence if it can be known; (iv) if the case has an international element; and (v) the length of time the offence lasted. 21.The Court of Appeal in Boma emphasized the importance of deterrence for this kind of offence, pointed out that the amount of money laundered was an important consideration but not the only one, and set out a non-exhaustive list of other significant considerations, which includes: (i) the nature of the predicate offence; (ii) the state of the offender’s knowledge; (iii) whether an international element was involved; (iv) the sophistication of the offence; (v) whether organised criminal syndicate was involved; (vi) the number of transactions and length of the offence; (vii) whether the offender continued to launder funds after knowing that they were proceeds of a serious crime; and (viii) the offender’s role and the acts performed by him. 22.With regard to the cases set out by Cheung JA in Hsu Yu Yi showing the starting points for different amounts of money laundered, the Court of Appeal in Wan Kwok Keung observed that the sentencing starting point is 3 years or so where the proceeds involved is between HK$1 million and HK$2 million, 4 years or so where it is between HK$3 million and HK$6 million, and could be over 5 years where it is above HK$10 million. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Liao Liting (廖麗婷) CACC 334/2015 remarked that while these starting points are not sentencing guidelines, they provide valuable reference[1]. 23.In Secretary for Justice v Tse Chi Kin (謝志建) CAAR 4/2024, the Court of Appeal pointed out that in dealing with money laundering sentencing, the judge should consider on the one hand the maximum sentence for this type of offence and the need for deterrent sentence, and on the other hand the facts of the case and his overall impression of the case; the judge should not merely rely on the appropriate sentencing bracket for the amount of money laundered.[2] 24.Charge 1 involves laundering close to $1.5 million in 27 days. Charge 2 involves laundering about $2.2 million in 34 days. Both charges involve laundering a total of about $3.7 million. 25.Given that these are very serious offences which call for deterrent sentence even for a first-time offender, I would adopt 2 years’ imprisonment as the starting point for Charge 1 and 2½ years’ imprisonment as the starting point for Charge 2. I consider 3½ years’ imprisonment to be an appropriate starting point for his overall criminality in this case. 26.His guilty plea, which would entitle him to a one-third discount, would reduce the sentence for Charge 1 to 16 months, the sentence for Charge 2 to 20 months and the sentence for his overall criminality to 28 months. Sentence Enhancement under OSCO 27.A statement dated 12 August 2026 made by Chief Inspector LI Yiu Nam (“the statement”) of the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment of the Financial and Intelligence Bureau was tendered by the prosecution in support of its application under section 27(2) of OSCO to enhance the sentence on the grounds of prevalence and the nature and extent of harm caused to the community. 28.The statement describes someone who has assisted in the money laundering activities but has minimal or no involvement in the predicate offence or has little or no knowledge about the predicate offence as a money laundering stooge. 29.The statement shows that the number of money laundering stooge arrested in 2024 was 7,883 (the highest number of stooges arrested since 2020), accounting for 75.1 % of all the persons arrested in fraud and money laundering cases. For the year 2025, the corresponding figures were 5,355 arrests and 71% respectively. From January to June 2026, the number of stooges arrested was 3,156, accounting for 73.48% of all the persons arrested in fraud and money laundering cases. 30.The amount of total loss and/or proceeds laundered reached its peak in 2022, with a figure of $35,549.21 million. The total amount of loss in 2025 was $4,577.64 million, and the total loss in January to June 2026 was $1,426.38 million. 31.Although the statistics show that the number of stooges arrested and the total amount of loss have both declined from their respective peaks, these offences are still prevalent and causing tremendous harm to the community. 32.I consider that this case calls for sentence enhancement, and a 25% increase in sentence is appropriate. 33.Thus enhanced, the sentences become as follows: (i) Charge 1: 20 months’ imprisonment; (ii) Charge 2: 25 months’ imprisonment; and (iii) Overall criminality: 35 months’ imprisonment. Totality 34.15 months of Charge 2 are to be served consecutively with Charge 1, giving rise to a total sentence of 35 months’ imprisonment in respect of this case. 35.I consider 5 years’ imprisonment to be a sufficient reflection of D’s criminality after plea in both the present case and case DCCC 475/2023. 36.I do not agree with Mr Wong’s submission about the constraint this Court is under in considering the means of achieving that total sentence. I would order that one year 10 months of the sentence in respect of this case are to be served consecutively with D’s sentence of 3 years 2 months’ imprisonment in respect of DCCC 475/2023, resulting in a total sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment