HKSAR v. Chen Genglin

DCCC 1280/2025

[2026] HKDC 1375

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1280 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to 5 separate charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, an offence contrary to Section 25(1)  and subsection (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455.

2.Each charge relates to a separate bank account of which the defendant was the sole signatory and sole account holder. In the facts, the accounts are referred to as DAC1 to DAC5.  Into these 5 accounts, the proceeds of crime are received from 26 victims of various frauds, such as romance scams, e-shopping scams, investment scams, sale boosting scams, some of which involve the use of telephone WhatsApp and WeChat.

3.The bank accounts were with HSBC in charge 1, Bank of East Asia in charge 2.  The remaining bank accounts related to charge 3 to 5 with the Bank of China.  The facts set out the details of deposits made by the 26 victims into the accounts, DAC1 to DAC5.  In total in the 5 accounts, there are a total of $1,839,011 placed in the accounts by the 26 victims.

4.It is known that the defendant was the sole signatory and sole account holder of these 5 accounts.  They were opened between 29 October 2024 and 5 November 2024.  The defendant was known to be present in Hong Kong between 29 October and 31 October when accounts DAC1 and DAC2 were opened.  DAC3 to 5 were opened online.  The facts showed that on the opening of DAC1, DAC2, the defendant was said to be present and gave details of his employment and residence.

5.Analysis of the accounts showed the following amounts were received into them:  As far as DAC1 is concerned, that was active between 31 October and 5 November 2024.  A total of 20 deposits were received into the account, totalling some $986,719.  There were 24 withdrawals made during that period and suspicious transaction patterns were noted and also mirror patterns were noted.

6.DAC2 was active between 29 October 2024 and 6 November 2024.  There were 13 deposits totalling $1,099,598.59.  A total of 12 withdrawals, leaving a closing balance of $331.79.  Again, suspicious transactions were noted and mirror patterns were noted.

7.DAC3 was only active between the 5 and 7 November 2024.  In that period, there were 42 deposits, totalling $747,130.26 and the total of 45 withdrawals, leaving a total of $28.48.

8.DAC4 was again only opened between the 5 and 7 November 2024.  A total of $300,046.49 as a result of 6 deposits being received into the account.  There were 9 withdrawals, leaving a total of $160.09.

9.DAC5 was opened between the 5 and 8 November 2024.  A total of 26 deposits were received in, a total of $405,795.95.  There were 18 withdrawals, leaving a total of $247.75 in the account.  In all accounts, what are described as a suspicious transaction patterns were seen and mirror patterns were noted.

10.The defendant was arrested on 26 November 2024 when he applied to change the reported phone numbers of DAC3 to DAC5 accounts at the Tai Po branch at the Bank of China.  The defendant made a video-recorded interview.  He confirmed he had no residential address in Hong Kong and lived in Shenzhen.  He was a technician in the jewellery industry.  He said he knew nothing about DAC1 and DAC2.  He did confirm that the two-way permit annex to the opening mandate of DAC4 was his own two-way permit.  He said he had lent DAC2 to a friend because his friend asked him to.  He did not say anything in respect of DAC3 to 5.

11.I have already said the defendant was known to have entered Hong Kong on 29 October 2024 and again on 31 October 2024, finally re-entering on 26 November 2024 when he was arrested.

12.The defendant is a person of clear record in Hong Kong.  The facts show a total of in excess of 3.5 million was received into the 5 accounts over the period, the relevant period.  The defendant’s personal details are he is now 30 years old, born in Mainland China, was living with his parents before his arrest.  He has a six-year-old daughter but he is divorced.  He was living in Shenzhen.  He had been working as a jewellery technician and a construction worker.  He says he has a clear criminal conviction record both in Hong Kong and the People’s Republic of China. 

13.I have received mitigating letters written by the defendant and his sister.  His sister is in court today.  In the letter, the defendant expresses remorse for his offending.  There is some explanation about health problems in the family.  The defendant’s elder sister describes the family as coming from a poor rural background.  She also mirrors the defendant’s expression of remorse.

14.The defence in mitigation puts forward a number of factors that the court should consider, that is the timely plea of guilty which would warrant a one-third discount in sentence.  It is said there is no evidence to show that the defendant was aware of the specific data or nature of the predicate offences, nor is there evidence linking him to the planning or execution of the scams.  The defendant  seems to be the holder of a bank account for which the proceeds passed.  It is said the defendant’s role was limited and cannot be seen a member of a criminal syndicate perpetrating the fraud.

15.The defence also asked the court to consider the fact that this is an offence that occurred, on the face of it, in Hong Kong, in Hong Kong bank accounts and the fact that the defendant came in across the border in order to take part in the offences should not be seen as a particular serious aggravating factor given the close relationship of the economies of Hong Kong and Shenzhen.

16.It is said the offences occurred over a short period of time between 31 October and 8 November, a total of some 10 days, so it is not a prolonged offence.  There was no evidence, also it is said, the defendant derived any substantial benefit from the offences.  The defendant said he knew nothing of the transactions that had gone through the bank accounts and he seemed to have, on his admission, lent his account to another.

17.There is an application for enhancement of sentence, I will deal with that when the matter arises. 

18.The offence itself under Section 25(1)  and subsection (3)  of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance can lead to a fine of $5 million or imprisonment for 14 years.  It is a serious offence.  There are no separate sentencing guidelines for the offence of money laundering because of the variation of facts from case to case.  Of course, I do have regard to a number of cases that set out the principles upon which sentence should take account.  There is the case of HKSAR v Boma [2012] HKLRD 33.  It sets out a non-exhaustive list of consideration that the court should take into account.  There are cases such as Secretary of Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 and HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 which deal with a number of cases where sentencing has occurred showing the variation of sentencing but sets out a series of not guidelines but considerations the court should take into account and deals with the amounts of money involved in those cases. 

19.The case of Boma sets out a number of factors the court should consider, such as the nature of the predicate offence; the state of the offender’s knowledge; whether there is an international dimension; the degree of planning where the case taking part on behalf of an organised crime syndicate; the number of transactions; the length of time over which they were committed; the role of the offender and the acts performed by him.  I note in the case of Boma that it was said the sentencing court should have regard to the role of the offender and the acts performed by him.  So, for example, the drug addict or petty crook who is paid a small sum to open account and hand over his operation to another with no more participation and not more knowledge than that that it is going to be used for some sort of crime is much less culpable then an offender of a different sort not used in that way.

20.Naturally, the amount of money involved in the case is perhaps the paramount consideration in cases of money laundering. It has been said in cases that I have referred to where the proceeds of between 1 million and 2 million, a starting point of 3 years or so to be considered; 4 years where the amount is between 3 million and 6 million and over 5 years where it is above 10 million.   So what could be described as a ballpark figure for these offences would be in totality in the region of 4 years’ imprisonment mitigated of course by the defendant’s pleas of guilty and the fact of the limited involvement in the predicate offences by the defendant, the defendant here being described as the person who has lent a, what is described as a “stooge account”. 

21.The prosecution have applied to enhance the sentences in respect of these offences and a statement has been given to the court pursuant to Section 27(2)  of Cap 455 by Inspector Li dealing with the prevalence of the use of stooge accounts, the commission of specified offences and harm, whether direct or indirect, caused to the community by recent occurrences of the specified offence.  There can be no doubt on the basis of Inspector Li’s evidence that both the stooge accounts are prevalent and also there is harm caused to the community.  Inspector Li himself defines a stooge account as a person referred to as a money mule but he said the stooge account is a person who has a minimal or no involvement in the predicate offence, who has little or no knowledge of the predicate offence.  It is found that a lot of the stooges in Hong Kong had sold or lent their accounts of financial institutions and bank accounts were involved as well as stored value facilities such as AliPay, WeChat and Tap&Go. 

22.The defence has pointed out that the figures produced by Inspector Li show that in respect of the number of persons arrested, the number of offences, there has been a plateauing and reduction on those figures between January to May of 2026.  We also see the amounts of money involved and they asked the court to take that into account when each determining the sentence for the defendant. 

23.I consider in this case that this is a case in which there will be an enhancement of sentence, the prosecution having established the basic facts which the court should take that into account and enhance the sentences imposed on the defendant.

24.I turn now to the sentencing exercise.  I consider that this is in fact what I would describe as a totality case.  The offences occurred over a short period of time and I must look at the total amount involved when determining the level of sentencing for the defendant, the one-third discount and the appropriate enhancement of sentence and then I must pass on each charge a sentence that reflects the defendant’s culpability in respect of each charge.

25.The figures I adopted will be as follows: I consider that an overall totality for the 5 charges should be one of 45 months’ imprisonment.  The defendant would be entitled on this overall totality to a reduction of one-third which of course is 15 months, bringing a figure of 30 months’ imprisonment.  I would adopt an enhancement of 20 per cent for this figure which would be an additional 6 months’ imprisonment, leading to a final sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment.  That is the figure I will adopt as the final total sentence for the defendant.

26.I achieved this by sentencing on the individual figures as follows:  This, on the individual offences I have taken a starting point on the first 2 charges of 30 months’ imprisonment, reduced to 20 months’ imprisonment.  I then have enhanced those both by 4 months to lead to figures on charges 1 and 2 of 24 months’ imprisonment on each charge.

27.In respect of charges 3 through to 5, I take a starting point of 15 months’ imprisonment and reduce that to 10 months’ imprisonment for the defendant’s plea of guilty but then there is enhancement of 2 months’ imprisonment for each of those charges, which leads to a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment on each charge.

28.I will achieve the overall sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment by ordering that sentences on charges 1 and 2 be served concurrently to each other, a total of 24 months.  I shall order that the sentences on 3 through to 5 be served concurrently to each other but they will be served consecutively to the sentences on charge 1 and 2.  This gives an overall total of 36 months’ imprisonment which will be the sentence of the court.