HKSAR v. Leung Hiu Tung

DCCC 1374/2025

[2026] HKDC 1720

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1374 OF 2025

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Money laundering". He "sold" his 2 bank accounts to someone.

Summary of Facts

2.On 14 October 2022, the defendant opened the virtual bank accounts as particularized in Charges 1 and 2 (Accounts 1 and 2) through mobile applications.  He was the sole signatory of both accounts.

Deception

3.Between 28 December 2022 and 3 January 2023, PWs 1 to 29 were deceived by various scams. They were lured to make payments to various bank accounts including Accounts 1 and 2.  Their net monetary loss amounted to approximately $12.6 million in total.

Money laundering

Charge 1

4.During the offence period, Account 1 received 682 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $3,048,945.57, of which a total sum of $1,604,150.87 came from PWs 1 to 9, 11, 13, 14, 16 to 21, 23, 25 and 28.  An aggregated sum of $2,994,373 was withdrawn by 99 transactions.

Charge 2

5.During the offence period, Account 2 received 116 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $1,333,787.67, of which a total sum of $1,082,816.23 from PWs 5, 6, 10, 12, 14, 15, 18, 20, 22, 24 to 27 and 29.  An aggregated sum of $1,333,788.76 was withdrawn by 50 transactions.

Arrest and admissions

6.The defendant was arrested by different investigation teams of the police on 8 December 2023, 4 June 2024, 2 August 2024, 30 October 2024 and 13 June 2025 regarding Accounts 1 and 2.

7.In his video recorded interview conducted on 8 December 2023, the defendant claimed that in 2022, he had sold his bank accounts to someone in a game centre for $1,000. That person used his mobile phone to open the bank accounts using the defendant's HKID card and personal particulars.  The defendant took selfies voluntarily to open the accounts.

Other evidence

8.Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals, as well as the daily balances of Accounts 1 and 2, the police found typical features of money laundering.

9.Records kept by the Inland Revenue Department showed that the defendant's known background and income declared for the 2021/22 and 2022/23 tax years are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by Accounts 1 and 2.

Mitigation & Sentence

10.The defendant is 30 and has a clear record. Defence counsel Miss Chan informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his parents. At the time of the offences, he was a casual worker setting up and dismantling exhibition booths with a monthly income of about $15,000. In mitigation, Miss Chan submitted that the defendant had foolishly agreed to open 2 virtual bank accounts for someone for a reward of $1,000. He was not involved in any predicate offence, though he knew that both accounts would be used for illegal purposes at the time when he opened them.

11.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. Miss Chan did not object.

12.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]."

13.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 4 August 2026. I am satisfied that betweenlate 2022 and early 2023, 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.

14.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.

15.This is a typical case of money laundering by way of stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the deceptionperpetrated against PWs 1-29, such scams would have been meaningless without his bank accounts. Assuming what the defendant said is true, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

16.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]

17.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 his personal circumstances.

18.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

19.I accept there is no evidence showing that the defendant had knowledge of or was involved in any predicate offence (including the scams perpetrated against PWs 1 to 29). As the sole owner of Account 1, he should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

20.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of $3 million odd went through Account 1 within 2.5 months. By selling his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins 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.

21.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 40 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

22.An aggregated sum of $1.33 million odd went through Account 2 within 2.5 months. I adopt a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 24 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 30 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

23.The grand total received by Accounts 1 and 2 was roughly $4.38 million. I consider a global starting point of 4 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 32 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 40 months. Hence, I order the sentences for Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently.