HKSAR v. Yung Man Yee, Kit

DCCC 1387/2024

[2026] HKDC 1927

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1387 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

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

Summary of Facts

2.On 12 April 2021, the defendant opened the bank account as particularized in Charge 1 ("the SCB Account").  She was the sole signatory of that account. The phone number on the bank's record for the SCB Account was 5541 2877.

3.Between 23 April and 14 May 2021, the SCB Account received 135 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $3,289,122.  An aggregate sum of $3,288,753.20 was withdrawn through 89 transactions.

4.Based on the timing and amounts of the deposits and withdrawals of the SCB Account, the police found a "mirror pattern" in those transactions, which is a typical indicator of money laundering.

5.On 22 June 2021, the police arrested the defendant for "Lending money at an excessive interest rate".  Upon search, the police found an iPhone with the phone number 5541 2877 in the defendant's home.

6.In her video recorded interview, the defendant admitted that she was unemployed and was receiving social welfare in the sum of $4,900 per month.  She did not own any company, motor vehicle or real property in Hong Kong.  The iPhone seized in her home belonged to her.

7.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.

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

Mitigation & Sentence

9.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 Charge 1, 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 DCCC 931/2026, a case which was heard together with the present case.

10.I will deal with the issue of "delay" first. In reply to Mr. Li's complaint, Miss Lai for the prosecution has prepared a Chronology of Events in relation to DCCC 931/2026 for my reference. Unfortunately, the Chronology does not cover the milestone dates in the present case. What I notice, however, is that the defendant was arrested on 22 June 2021 and she first appeared in the District Court on 21 November 2024. There was a gap of 3 years and 5 months from arrest to first appearance in the District Court.

11.I will discuss the issue of undue delay in detail in my Reasons for Sentence in DCCC 931/2026.  Suffice it to say that I find 3 years and 5 months unacceptable in the present case, even allowing for the pandemic from 2020 to 2023.

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. Li 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 2021, 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 a stooge bank account.  Since there is no evidence of any predicate offence in the present case, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 20%, having regard to the defendant's role, the total sum which passed through the SCB Account, and the overall circumstances.  I must stress that money laundering activities would be impossible without the use of stooge bank accounts.  

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 amount of money involved, the duration of the offence, the defendant's role in relation to the movements of funds as well as her 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]

20.An aggregate sum of $3.2 million odd went through the SCB Account within a period of 3 weeks. By allowing dubious funds to pass through the SCB Account, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s)  of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities. I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment[4]. With the timely guilty plea, the sentence becomes 32 months. With the 20% enhancement, the sentence becomes 38 months. I would grant an additional discount of 4 months for the undue delay. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating factors which warrant any further reduction. I sentence the defendant to 34 months' imprisonment for Charge 1.