HKSAR v. Yung Man Yee, Kit

DCCC 931/2026

[2026] HKDC 1928

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 931 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to 3 charges of "Money laundering". She lent her bank accounts to other people.

Summary of Facts

2.On 9 February 2021, the defendant opened the virtual bank account as particularized in Charge 1 (Account 1).  She was the sole signatory of that account.

3.On 19 February 2014, the defendant opened the bank account as particularized in Charge 2 (Account 2)  in person at a branch.  She was the sole signatory of that account.

4.Chamer Trading Limited ("Chamer")  was incorporated in Hong Kong in November 2021.  The defendant was its sole shareholder and director.  On 17 November 2021, the defendant, on behalf of Chamer, opened the bank account as particularized in Charge 3 (Account 3)  in person at a branch.  She was the sole signatory of that account.

Deception

5.In September 2021, PWs 1 to 5 were deceived by online investment scams.  They made payments to various bank accounts including Account 1.  Between 6 and 26 September 2021, PWs 1 to 5 transferred an aggregate sum of HK$411,497.24 to Account 1.

6.PW6 was deceived by a fraudster who purported to be a staff member of Mox Bank, claiming that he could assist him in obtaining a credit card.  On 29 January 2023, PW6 transferred HK$20,000 to Account 2.

Money laundering

Charge 1

7.Between 1 March and 29 September 2021, Account 1 received 896 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of HK$12,372,621.72 (including the total sum of HK$411,497.24 from PWs 1 to 5).  An aggregate sum of HK$12,372,520.80 was withdrawn by 664 transactions.

Charge 2

8.Between 14 January and 31 March 2023, Account 2 received 3,334 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of HK$3,668,460.36 (including the HK$20,000 from PW6).  An aggregate sum of HK$3,663,198.45 was withdrawn by 133 transactions.

Charge 3

9.Between 20 December 2021 and 5 January 2022, Account 3 received 4 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of US$1,409,478.40.  An aggregate sum of US$1,409,363.94 was withdrawn by 24 transactions, of which a total sum of US$1,409,148.10 was remitted to overseas bank accounts by 12 withdrawals.

Evidence of money laundering

10.Based on the timing and amounts of the deposits and withdrawals of Accounts 1 to 3, the police found a "mirror pattern" in those transactions, which is a typical indicator of money laundering.

11.According to the record of the Social Welfare Department, the defendant was a welfare recipient from July 2005 to August 2009, and from January 2010 to November 2023.

12.The defendant's financial background and Chamer's lack of tax record are not commensurate with the magnitude of the deposits received by Accounts 1 to 3.

Arrest and admissions

13.The police arrested the defendant on 4 August 2022 in relation to Account 3.  Under caution, she admitted having signed certain documents upon the instruction of a friend named "Ah Him".  She received $2,000 in return.  She also attended a branch of the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China together with an unknown male.

14.The police arrested the defendant on 5 May 2023 in relation to Account 1.  She remained silent under caution.

15.The police arrested the defendant on 25 July 2023 in relation to Account 2.   Under caution, she claimed that she had sold Account 2 together with its ATM card to a friend named "Ah May" for $3,000.

16.The defendant now admits that during the respective offence periods, she had conspired with other person(s)  unknown, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the respective funds received by Accounts 1 to 3 in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represented any person's proceeds of an indictable offence, to deal with those funds.

Mitigation & Sentence

17.The defendant is 49 and has 6 conviction records involving a total of 7 offences, none of which were related to "money laundering". When she committed the present offences, she only had 4 conviction records involving a total of 5 offences. Defence counsel Mr. Li informed me that the defendant is not married but has a son (aged 23). She is a social welfare recipient. In mitigation, Mr. Li submitted that the defendant is at the verge of losing her public housing unit owing to her extended period in jail custody. She has become a Christian and was baptised in July 2026. Finally, Mr. Li complained about undue delay in the present case.

18.I will deal with the issue of "delay" first. Miss Lai for the prosecution has prepared a Chronology of Events for my reference. On 4 August 2022, 5 May 2023 and 25 July 2023, the defendant was arrested in relation to Accounts 3, 1 and 2 respectively by 3 different police teams. The 3 police teams investigated Accounts 1 to 3 separately. On 1 February 2025, a 4^th police team took over the investigation of the defendant. At the end of March 2025, the 4^th police team consolidated the investigation results of Accounts 1 to 3 and submitted the case file to the Department of Justice (DoJ)  for legal advice. Legal advice was given on 5 January 2026. This case first reached the magistrates' court on 14 May 2026.

19.Counting from 4 August 2022, it took 3 police teams 2.5 years to investigate the defendant separately before they decided to assign the investigation to a 4^th police team and consolidate 3 cases into one. Then it took the DoJ 9 months to give legal advice. In short, there was a gap of almost 3 years and 9 months from arrest in relation to the 1^st bank account to first appearance in the magistrates' court. I find this delay unacceptable, even allowing for the pandemic from 2020 to 2023.

20.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. Li did not object.

21.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]."

22.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 25 August 2026. I am satisfied that from 2021 to 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.

23.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.

24.This is a typical case of money laundering through stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the deception perpetuated against PWs 1 to 6, such scams would have been meaningless without her bank accounts. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given her role, the total sums which went through Accounts 1 to 3 and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

25.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]

26.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.

27.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

28.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 5). As the sole owner of Account 1, she should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

29.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregate sum of HK$12 million odd went through Account 1 within a period of almost 7 months (including the total sum of HK$411,497.24 from PWs 1 to 5). By lending her 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.

30.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 40 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 50 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Charge 2

31.An aggregate sum of HK$3.6 million odd went through Account 2 within a period of 2.5 months (including the HK$20,000 from PW6). I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment. 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 3

32.An aggregate sum of US$1.4 million odd (equivalent to approximately HK$10.9 million)  went through Account 3 within a period of 2 weeks. I adopt a starting point of 5 years' imprisonment. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 40 months. With the 25% enhancement, I sentence the defendant to 50 months' imprisonment for this charge.

Overall sentence

33.The grand total received by Accounts 1 to 3 was roughly HK$27 million. I consider a global starting point of 6.5 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 52 months. With the 25% enhancement, the sentence becomes 65 months. I would grant an additional discount of 5 months for the undue delay. Hence, the final overall sentence becomes 60 months. I order the sentences for the 3 charges to run in the following manner:

(i)  5 months in Charge 2 consecutive to Charge 1; and

(ii)  5 months in Charge 3 consecutive to Charges 1 and 2.

34.Moments ago, I have just sentenced the defendant to 34 months' imprisonment for a charge of "Money laundering" in DCCC 1387/2024. She committed a total of 4 offences within a period of 2 years. The grand total received by the defendant's 4 bank accounts in both cases was HK$30 million odd. For that amount, I consider a starting point of 81 months imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, enhancement and reduction for undue delay, the final sentence should be 62 months. Hence, I order 2 months in DCCC 1387/2024 to run consecutively to the sentences in the present case. In other words, the total prison term for both cases is 62 months.