HKSAR v CHENG Xixi

DCCC 962/2025

[2026] HKDC 1682

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 962 OF 2025

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to 5 charges of "Money laundering". She used her bank accounts to receive suspicious funds and then withdrew the money on behalf of a relative.

Summary of Facts

2.Between 5 and 27 August 2024, the defendant opened the 5 bank accounts as particularized in Charges 1 to 5 (Accounts 1 to 5).  She was the sole signatory of all 5 accounts.

3.In September 2024, the police received reports from several banks about unusual transactions detected in accounts held by customers from the mainland.  On 12 September 2024, the police arrested the defendant in Hong Kong.

Charge 1

4.Between 5 August and 2 September 2024, Account 1 received 16 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $807,834.  A total sum of $807,836.42 was withdrawn by 12 transactions.

Charge 2

5.Between 6 August and 11 September 2024, Account 2 received 82 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $7,624,964.31.  A total sum of $7,624,900 was withdrawn by 82 transactions.

Charge 3

6.Between 7 August and 5 September 2024, Account 3 received 38 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $2,646,501.19.  The exact aggregated sum was withdrawn by 43 transactions.

Charge 4

7.Between 27 August and 11 September 2024, Account 4 received 65 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $4,000,001.04.  A total sum of $3,999,650 was withdrawn by 55 transactions.

Charge 5

8.Between 5 August and 11 September 2024, Account 5 received 66 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $5,621,992.61.  A total sum of $5,621,519 was withdrawn by 62 transactions.

Evidence of money laundering

9.Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals of Accounts 1 to 5, the police found a "mirror pattern" in those transactions, which is a typical indicator of money laundering.

10.The defendant's financial background is not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by Accounts 1 to 5.

11.Accounts 1, 4 and 5, which are virtual bank accounts, were used to receive funds from dubious sources.  Accounts 2 and 3, which are traditional bank accounts, were used to receive funds transferred from Accounts 1, 4 and 5.  The money was then withdrawn from Accounts 2 and 3 via ATMs on the same day.

Admissions

12.Under caution, the defendant claimed that her brother-in-law, who is a mainland resident, had asked to use her virtual bank accounts to receive funds on his behalf because he was busy and sick.  She stated that the funds received in her bank accounts came from his cryptocurrency trading.  She then transferred the funds from the virtual bank accounts to Accounts 2 or 3, and withdrew cash from those two accounts to buy cryptocurrencies again.  The defendant was unable to recall where she had purchased the cryptocurrencies or which type of cryptocurrencies she had bought.  She simply followed her brother-in-law's instructions.

13.According to the Immigration Department, the defendant was in Hong Kong on the respective dates when Accounts 1 to 5 were opened and when the cash withdrawals were made.

14.The defendant now admits that during the respective offence periods, she, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the funds received by Accounts 1 to 5, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented any person's proceeds of an indictable offence, had dealt with those funds.

Mitigation & Sentence

15.The defendant is a mainland resident. She is 31 and has a clear record. Defence counsel Mr. Cao informed me that the defendant got married in 2019 and has a son (aged 5). She separated from her husband in 2022. The defendant is qualified and has worked as a professional nurse in the mainland. In mitigation, Mr. Cao submitted that the defendant acted on the instructions of a relative. Although she has been stranded in Hong Kong since her arrest, she has not given up on herself and has completed a self-learning course in Child Development.

16.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. Cao did not object.

17.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]."

18.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 20 July 2026. I am satisfied that in 2024, 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.

19.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.

20.This is a typical case of money laundering through stooge bank accounts. The banks notified the police after detecting unusual transactions. Since there is no evidence of any predicate offence in the present case, and assuming what the defendant said is true, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 20%, having regard to her role, the total sums which passed through her5 accounts, and the overall circumstances. I must stress that money laundering activities would beimpossible without the use of stooge bank accounts.

21.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]

22.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 her personal circumstances.

23.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

24.An aggregated sum of $807,834 went through Account 1 within a period of 1 month. Even though there is no evidence of any predicate offence, by allowing dubious funds to pass through Account 1, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s) of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities. I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 16 months. With the 20% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 19 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

25.An aggregated sum of $7,624,964.31 went through Account 2 within a period of 1 month. I adopt a starting point of 4.5 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 36 months. With the 20% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 43 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 3

26.An aggregated sum of $2,646,501.19 went through Account 3 within a period of 1 month. I adopt a starting point of 3.5 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 28 months. With the 20% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 33 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 4

27.An aggregated sum of $4,000,001.04 went through Account 4 within a period of 2 weeks. I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32 months. With the 20% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 38 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 5

28.An aggregated sum of $5,621,992.61 went through Account 5 within a period of 1 month. I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32 months. With the 20% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 38 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

29.Mr. Cao has raised the point of double-counting. He submitted that Accounts 1, 4 and 5 were used to receive suspicious funds. The defendant then transferred those funds to Accounts 2 or 3 for ATM withdrawals. In other words, the net amount "laundered" by the defendant was approximately $10.43 million (i.e. the total sum received by Accounts 1, 4 and 5). This grand total figure corresponds with the total sum received by Accounts 2 and 3, which was approximately $10.27 million. Prosecuting counsel Mr. Hui did not take issue with the figures put forward by Mr. Cao. I would therefore base the overall sentence for all 5 charges on the total sum of $10.43 million.

30.I consider a global starting point of 5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just for $10.43 million. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 40 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 20% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 48 months. Hence, I order the sentences for the 5 charges to run in the following manner:

(i) Charges 2 and 3 concurrent;

(ii) 1 month in Charge 1 consecutive to Charges 2 and 3;

(iii) 2 months in Charge 4 consecutive to Charges 1 to 3; and

(iv) 2 months in Charge 5 consecutive to Charges 1 to 4.