HKSAR v. Wan Chi Leung

DCCC 1636/2025

[2026] HKDC 1442

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1636 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has been convicted on his own plea of a single charge of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to Section 25(1)  and (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.

2.The bare facts shown in the particulars of offence show the offence occurring between 7 September 2022 and 16 September 2022, where a total of some HK$5,930,229 went through a bank account with the China CITIC Bank International Limited which was in the defendant’s sole name and it is said that those funds in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence.

3.The facts are straightforward and mirror the particulars of offence.  The defendant himself held at the time a personal savings account with the China CITIC Bank International.  That account had been held since 23 November 2021.  He was the sole account holder and the sole authorised signatory of the CITIC account.

4.We know that a man known as “Li Bonan” was subject to a telephone deception.  He was accused of crimes, allegedly accused of crimes by what were fake Mainland officials and between August and September 2022, this Mr Li transferred some $22.6 million to bank accounts designated by the scammers.  Some $5,929,999 was paid into the defendant’s CITIC savings account.

5.We know from the facts, again that on 21 June 2022, the defendant presented his Hong Kong Identity Card as proof of identity and proof of address to an officer of the bank.  The deposits of some 5.93 million going to the CITIC account came through 20 deposits, 13 of these made by Mr Li.  During that period, a total of $5,929,670 was disposed of through 36 withdrawals.  The account shows that it had been operated as a repository of fund to receive and dispose of money, including money that was received from the Li Bonan scam. 

6.The defendant attended a video-recorded interview on 9 January 2024.  He admitted opening the CITIC account for saving money and had activated the online banking service for the bank account.  At the time of his video-recorded interview, he said that he had not lent the account to any other person.  It does form part of the defendant’s mitigation, however, that he had rented the account for some $5,000. 

7.That is a summary of the facts against the defendant.  Clearly, they show his involvement in this offence.  They also show that the defendant would appear to be seen as being a money laundering stooge, that is somebody who assists in money laundering activities but has been alone or not involved in the predicate offence or little or no knowledge of the predicate offence.  He is a person who has sold or lent their account at a financial institution. 

8.The defendant has a number of criminal convictions dating from 2006 through to 2025 involving petty crime such as common assault, assault and theft. 

9.I turn now to the defendant’s mitigation advanced by Mr Ng.  The defendant has indicated his guilty plea from 24 February 2026, that means he would be entitled to a full one-third discount.  The defendant accepts he was the sole signatory of the account.

10.He is now aged 34.  It is said that he had convictions since the age of 15.  I am told that he may well be in a position to form a relationship when he is released from prison and that he shows remorse.  The particular heads of mitigation are as follows:  He entered an early guilty plea and asks for a one-third discount.  He had no connection with the underlying offence or the telephone deception.  He had rented the account to another for some $5,000.  The offence itself, his involvement in the offence lasted some 10 days.  It could not be described as being sophisticated.  It is clear that it being his account, eventually the criminal responsibility would catch up with him.  It is said that he had no part in the movement of the money.

11.The mitigation also refers to the prosecution’s application for enhancement which can be seen from Chief Inspector Li’s statement and it is said that the more recent figures produced by Inspector Li show that this kind of offences, in other words money laundering stooge offences, have showed little increase or in fact a plateauing of figures certainly in January to June 2026.

12.Now the court approach to sentence in respect of these cases is that there is no actual guideline sentence.  I have been referred to a number of cases, in particular the case of SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, which said the starting point for this kind of offence is 3 years or so where the black money involved is between $1 million and $2 million; 4 years or so where it is between $3 million to $6 million and could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.  There are number of other cases cited, of course, because the facts of each case differ so substantially, support can be found for almost any figure one can imagine.

13.There is also the case of Boma which sets out the general considerations that the court must take into account when determining the starting point for sentence.  I have considered those matters. I also take account of the fact in sentencing that there is an application by the prosecution for enhancement of this sentence supported by the statement of Chief Inspector Li. I will simply say in respect of that, that clearly the statement of Inspector Li shows both that this offence is prevalent and that harm is caused directly or indirectly to the community and the prosecution should be in a position to ask for this sentence to be enhanced.

14.Turning to the actual figures I will engage in respect of this sentencing exercise, I determine that the correct starting point for sentence in this case is one of 57 months’ imprisonment. The defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount from that, which leads to a figure of 38 months’ imprisonment.  There should of course be an enhancement of sentence.  That will be in the region of 20 per cent.  A figure in the region of 20 per cent leads to an enhancement of a further 7 months onto that figure, giving a total of 45 months’ imprisonment. 

15.So the sentence of the court be one of 45 months’ imprisonment for this offence.