HKSAR v. Kan Tak Man

DCCC 307/2026

[2026] HKDC 1820

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 307 OF 2026

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

--------------------------------------

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

--------------------------------------

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to two charges 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.

2.Full details of the offences are set out in the facts admitted by the defendant. In summary, the predicate offence in this case involved a series of online employment/investment scams whereby victims (PW1-PW17) were duped by scammers to remit funds to various bank accounts. Two of these bank accounts were the defendant’s bank accounts opened with Welab Bank related to 1^st charge (“Welab A/C”) and China CITIC Bank International Limited related to 2^nd charge (“CITIC A/C”).

3.The allegation against the defendant is that between the 7January 2023 and the 1February 2023 for the 1^st charge and between 31December 2022 and 31 January 2023 for the 2^nd charge, both dates inclusive, in Hong Kong knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that property, namely a total sum of $1,343,468.21 Hong Kong currency held in Welab A/C (1^st charge) and a total sum of $1,494,732.58 Hong Kong currency held in CITIC A/C (2^nd charge) in whole or in part, directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence, dealt with the said property.

4.Welab A/C was opened on 1 January 2023 and Bank records showed that between 7 January 2023 and 1 February 2023, (approximately 1 month) a total deposit of HK$1,343,468.21 (including a total sum of HK$533,847 from a number of victims of the predicated offence) over 275 transactions and a total withdrawal of HK$1,310,695.08 on 56 occasions via bank transfer were recorded.

5.CITIC A/C was opened on 15 December 2022 and Bank records showed that between 31 December 2022 and 31 January 2023, (approximately 1 month) a total deposit of HK$1,494,732.58 (including a total sum of HK$204,910 from a number of victims of the predicated offence) over 40 transactions and a total withdrawal of HK$1,494,731.87 on 27 occasions via bank transfer were recorded.

6.The defendant was the sole authorized signatory of the subject accounts, and was in control of the subject accounts during the material time. The large sum of funds received into the subject accounts were incommensurate with the defendant‘s financial background.

7.Thus, the defendant was found to have dealt with the funds in the subject accounts during the material time, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the said properties, in whole or in part directly or indirectly represented any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence.

8.The total sum of the subject accounts involved was HK$2,838,200.79.

Background and criminal records of the defendant

9.Counsel for the defendant Ms. Ho submits that the defendant is 52 years old, divorced and educated up to primary 6 in Hong Kong.

10.She also admits on behalf of the defendant that the defendant has 77 criminal records at the time of offence. After that, the defendant has 3 more criminal records and one of them is a similar offence to the present case and he was sentenced on 16 July 2024 for 14 months’ imprisonment under the case no ESCC 428/2024.

11.Ms. Ho submits that the defendant was arrested on 22 September 2023 for “Obtaining property by deception”. The initial investigation at that time by the police involved 3 bank accounts which were opened under the name of the defendant (including Welab A/C and CITIC A/C in this case).

12.On 25 January 2024, the defendant was formally charged with money laundering involving one of the bank accounts in the initial investigation under the case no. ESCC 428/2024 and in June 2024, the defendant was found guilty after trial and sentenced 14 months’ imprisonment in the magistrates’ court.

13.Ms. Ho submits that regarding the present case, legal advice was sought from DOJ on 5 February 2025 and on 4 June 2025, DOJ provided the legal advice. The defendant was charged on 9 December 2025.

14.In mitigation, Ms. Ho submits that it was unknown to the defence why the prosecution division decided to segregate the prosecution of the 3 bank accounts. Ms. Ho urges this court to accept that, had the defendant been charged with money laundering of 3 bank accounts, the defendant would have benefited under the totality principal.

15.Ms. Ho also submits that in considering the culpability of the defendant, she urges the court to accept that the defendant played a minor role and was a money laundering stooge. She confirms that the defendant had personally dealt with the funds in the subject accounts.

16.She also stresses that there is no evidence to suggest that the defendant knew or was involved in the predicate offence, and she urges the court to consider the short amount of time that the subject accounts were active.

17.She further stresses that the role of the defendant could be said to fall towards the lower end of the “gradations of culpability” mentioned in the case of Boma.

18.For enhancement of sentence, Ms. Ho confirms that the defendant has no objection to the prosecution furnishing the written statement pursuant to OSCO, Cap 455; nor does the defendant opposed the prosecution’s request for sentence enhancement in respect of both charges.  However, she urges this court to consider the following: 

(i) The total number of deception and money laundering cases in 2020 was 16,643, and it reached its highest point in 2025 with 47,701 cases, in the 1^st half of 2026, another 23,131 cases were detected. The amount involved for the deception and money laundering cases in 2020 was 3,017.89M; it reached its highest point in 2022 with 36,644.73M; and the amount was on the decline from 12,033.26M in 2023; 6,115.15M in 2024; 7,624.15M in 2025; and from January to July 2026 at 2,680.65M.

(ii) The amount involved for cases with stooge accounts in 2020 was 1,879.83M; it reached its highest point in 2022 with 36,320.17M; and the amount was on the decline from 4,466.39M in 2024; 3,933.14M in 2025; and 1,426.62M from January to July 2026.

(iii) The statistic demonstrates the amount involved for cases with stooge accounts although remain very high but had declined gradually from 62.29% recorded in the year 2020; to 73.04% recorded in the year 2024; to 51.59% in the year 2025.

19.Based on the above statistics, she therefore urged this court to accept that an enhancement of 20% is already sufficient in this case.

Sentencing considerations

20.Money laundering is a serious offence for which deterrent sentence is required.  A person commits money laundering is liable on conviction upon indictment to a fine of 5 million and to imprisonment for 14 years.

21.Hon Yeung JA has said in HKSAR v Javid Kamran CACC 400/2004 that “money laundering is a very serious offence as it is an attempt to legitimize proceeds from criminal activities. Serious offences are very often motivated by financial gains and those who assist criminals in laundering money, indirectly encourage them in their criminal activities”, that “successful deterrents against money laundering could be effective measures against crime”, and that “it is not feasible to lay down guidelines for sentence of money laundering offence, as there is a wide range of culpability.”

22.Hon Cheung JA reiterated in HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 536 at para 9 that :

“There are no sentencing guidelines for the offence of dealing with the proceeds from an indictable offence because the facts vary from case to case.”

23.And listed out the factors to be taken into account when determining sentence:

(i) the amount of money involved is a major consideration;

(ii) the defendant’s level of participation;

(iii) the sentence imposed on the predicate offence if it can be known;

(iv) if the case has an international element; and

(v) the length of time the offence lasted.

24.From the money laundering cases referred in that case with the amounts involved and the sentences passed, Hon Cheung JA observed that:

“The starting point 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 and $6 million; and could be over 5 years where it is above $10 million.”

25.Ms. Ho refers to HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, the Court of Appeal emphasized again the importance of deterrence for this kind of offence, pointed out that the amount of money laundered was a significant feature, and set out a non-exhaustive list of other significant features, which includes:

(a) the nature of the predicate offence;

(b) the state of the offender’s knowledge;

(c) whether an international element was involved;

(d) the sophistication of the offence;

(e) whether organized criminal syndicate was involved;

(f) the number of transactions and length of the offence;

(g) whether the offender continued to launder funds after knowing that they were proceeds of a serious crime; and

(h) the offender’s role, whether reward was involved and how much.

26.Ms. Ho also refers to Secretary for Justice v Tse Chi Kin（謝志建）CAAR 4/2024, and points out that in dealing with money laundering sentencing, the judge should consider on the one hand the maximum sentence for this type of offence and the need for deterrent sentence, and on the other hand the facts of the case and his overall impression of the case; the judge should not merely rely on the appropriate sentencing bracket for the amount of money laundered.

27.In determining the proper starting point, I have reminded myself of the sentencing principles laid down above.  For the present case, I have also borne in mind the total amount of money involved (HK$2,838,200.79), the number of bank accounts, the duration of the offence (approximately 1 month), the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as his personal circumstances.

28.Though there is no evidence that the defendant knew or involved in the predicate offence, he was the sole authorized signatory and in control of the two accounts at all material times.

29.For assessment of the defendant’s culpability, I consider that the two offences could be treated as a continuous act of the defendant at the material time taking into account of the proximity and the overlap of the period of the 2 charges.

30.I therefore consider that a global starting point will be appropriate to reflect the overall culpability of the defendant and I adopted 42 months for charge 1 and 2. A one-third discount is given for the guilty pleas, reducing the overall sentence to 28 months.

Enhancement of sentence

31.The prosecution applies for enhancement of the sentence pursuant to section 27(2) of the Ordinance and submits the witness statement of CIP Li Yiu-nam to support the application. The defence does not challenge the evidence of CIP Li. I attach full weight to his evidence.  The defence accepts that enhancement is appropriate in the light of the prevalence of similar cases.

32.From the evidence of CIP Li, I am satisfied that offences of deception and money laundering are prevalent, and I am also satisfied that the use of stooge accounts is prevalent in the commission of the offence of money laundering which is one of the specified offences as stipulated in the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, and that the prevalent use of stooges in money laundering offences has caused considerable harm to the community either directly or indirectly.  I am satisfied that this is a case where enhancement of sentence should be made.

33.I am of the view that deterring people from acting as stooges will have the effect of deterring people from committing the predicate offences of deception/fraud and money laundering offences.  To achieve this sentencing purpose, I hold that the sentence to be imposed should be enhanced by 20%. 

34.For these reasons, the total imprisonment to be imposed on the defendant is enhanced from 28 months to 33 months (disregarding the decimal part).

35.Regarding the point made by Ms. Ho for the issue of segregated prosecution, I provided the case file of ESCC 428/2024 including the charge sheet and brief facts for the parties’ perusal on 30 September 2026 before hearing both parties’ further submission.

36.After hearing the submission from both sides, I accept that the results of the segregated prosecution had indeed caused injustice to the defendant and that a further reduction of 6 months will be approximate in the present case.

37.I therefore exercise my discretion and give the defendant a further deduction of 6 months of each charge.  After deduction, I sentence the defendant to 27 months’ imprisonment for both charges to be run concurrently.