HKSAR v. Tan Zhengwen

DCCC 1206/2025

[2026] HKDC 1795

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1206 OF 2025

____________

____________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

The defendant faces 4 charges of "Money laundering". He pleaded guilty to Charges 2 to 4. I granted the prosecution's application to leave Charge 1 on the court file, not to be proceeded with against the defendant without leave of court.

Summary of Facts

2.The defendant is a mainland resident.  Between 10 and 11 July 2024, he opened the 3 bank accounts as particularized in Charges 2 to 4 (Accounts 2 to 4).  He was the sole signatory of all 3 accounts.

3.Between 19 and 25 July 2024, a total of 16 victims (collectively "the Victims") were deceived by various scams.  They deposited a total sum of $1,260,127 into Accounts 2 to 4.

Charge 2

4.Between 10 and 21 July 2024, Account 2 received 30 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $763,959.01 (of which $105,965 came from the Victims).  The exact aggregated sum was withdrawn by 3 transactions.

Charge 3

5.Between 11 July and 9 September 2024, Account 3 received 37 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $627,806 (of which $423,162 came from the Victims).  The exact aggregated sum was withdrawn by 38 transactions.

Charge 4

6.Between 11 July and 31 August 2024, Account 4 received 29 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $1,363,170.48 (of which $731,000 came from the Victims).  The exact aggregated sum was withdrawn by 60 transactions.

Evidence of money laundering

7.Based on the timing and amount of the deposits and withdrawals of Accounts 2 to 4, the police found a "mirror pattern" in those transactions, which is a typical indicator of money laundering.

Arrest and admissions

8.Immigration records showed that the defendant entered Hong Kong on 10 July 2024 and left on 11 July 2024.  He was arrested for "money laundering" when he entered Hong Kong on 22 January 2025.

9.When interviewed under caution, the defendant admitted that he had an outstanding debt of RMB400,000 and was desperate to repay his debt.  He therefore resorted to selling his bank accounts.  He explained that a friend surnamed Liu suggested him to go to Hong Kong to approach a person.  Liu arranged for the defendant to go to Hong Kong on 10 July 2024.  He was then introduced to a man who called himself "Lai Ming".  Lai Ming brought the defendant to different banks to open accounts including Accounts 2 to 4.  After opening the accounts, the defendant handed everything (including login information, passwords and bank cards) to Lai Ming.  Afterwards, he received RMB4,000 from Lai Ming as his reward.

10.The defendant now admits that during the respective offence periods, he had conspired with other person(s) unknown, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the funds received by Accounts 2 to 4 in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented any person's proceeds of an indictable offence, to deal with those funds.

Mitigation & Sentence

11.The defendant is 50 and has a clear record. Defence counsel Mr. Lam informed me that the defendant is divorced with 2 sons (aged 22 and 16). He is a certified Chinese physiotherapist. In 2019, he opened his own wellness physiotherapy shop in Shenzhen earning RMB4,000 to RMB5,000 per month. Owing to the pandemic, he closed his shop in 2023, ending up RMB400,000 in debt. In mitigation, Mr. Lam submitted that the defendant committed the present offences as described by him in his cautioned interview. He did suspect that Accounts 2 to 4 could be used for money laundering.

12.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. Lam did not object.

13.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]."

14.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 25 August 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.

15.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.

16.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 the Victims, 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%.

17.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]

18.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.

19.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 2

20.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 the Victims). As the sole owner of Account 2, he should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

21.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregated sum of $763,000 odd went through Account 2 within 10 days. By selling his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through Account 2, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the masterminds behind the criminal activities access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

22.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 16 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 3

23.An aggregated sum of $627,000 odd went through Account 3 within 2 months. I adopt a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 16 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 20 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 4

24.An aggregated sum of $1,360,000 odd went through Account 4 within 1.5 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

25.The grand total received by Accounts 2 to 4 was roughly $2.75 million. I consider a global starting point of 3.5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 28 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 35 months. Hence, I order the sentences for the 3 charges to run in the following manner: (i) 2 months in Charge 2 consecutive to Charge 4; and (ii) 3 months in Charge 3 consecutive to Charges 2 and 4.