HKSAR v. Xin Yaopei

DCCC 1110/2025

[2026] HKDC 1951

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1110 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The defendant pleaded guilty to 2 charges of "Money laundering". He opened 2 bank accounts for someone with a view to receiving a monetary reward.

Summary of Facts

2.The defendant is a mainland resident.  He held a Two-way Permit, valid for from 2 July 2024 to 1 July 2025 with a single journey endorsement.  He was allowed to enter Hong Kong and stay for not more than 7 days, provided that he enters and exits Hong Kong together with the same tour group.

3.On 8 July 2024, the defendant opened the bank account as particularized in Charge 2 ("the HSBC Account").  He was the sole signatory of that account.

4.On 9 July 2024, the defendant opened the bank account as particularized in Charge 1 ("the BoC Account").  He was the sole signatory of that account.

Deception

5.Between 14 July and 2 August 2024, 19 fraud victims transferred an aggregate sum of $903,934 into the BoC Account, and an aggregate sum of $123,034 into the HSBC Account.

Money laundering

Charge 1

6.Between 9 and 19 July 2024, the BoC Account received 115 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $3,493,991.54 (including the total sum of $903,934 from 14 fraud victims). An aggregate sum of $3,493,664.09 was withdrawn by 112 transactions.

Charge 2

7.Between 10 July and 2 August 2024, the HSBC Account received 28 deposits, which aggregated to a sum of $430,564 (including the total sum of $123,034 from 5 fraud victims). An aggregate sum of $411,500 was withdrawn by 34 transactions.

Evidence of money laundering

8.Based on the timing and amounts of the deposits and withdrawals of both bank accounts, the police found a "mirror pattern" in those transactions, which is a typical indicator of money laundering.

Arrest and admissions

9.On 17 March 2025, the police arrested the defendant when he entered Hong Kong via the Lo Wu Control Point.  Under caution, he claimed that he knew nothing.

10.In his video recorded interview, the defendant claimed that he was a construction worker earning about RMB6,000 to 7,000 per month.  He resided in Jiangxi Province.  In July 2024, upon introduction of unknown person(s)  via WeChat, he agreed to visit Hong Kong to open bank accounts for monetary rewards.  After he opened the BoC Account, he gave the account number and related information to someone.  After returning to the mainland, the defendant could no longer contact the person who recruited him.  He was not given any reward for opening the BoC Account.

11.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 respective funds received by the BoC Account and the HSBC 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

12.The defendant is 37 and has a clear record. Defence counsel Ms. Ng informed me that the defendant is single and resides with his parents (aged 63 and 59). He supports his parents financially and is also their primary caregiver. In mitigation, Ms. Ng submitted that the defendant foolishly agreed to come to Hong Kong to open bank accounts for others to earn some quick money. He is extremely remorseful. The duration of both offences was relatively short.

13.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. Ms. Ng did not object.

14.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]."

15.I have read the witness statement of CIP Li dated 5 October 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.

16.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.

17.This is a typical case of money laundering through stooge bank accounts. Even if the defendant did not know about the deception perpetrated against the 19 victims, such scams would have been meaningless without his bank accounts. Assuming what the defendant said is true, given his role, the total sums which went through the BoC Account and the HSBC Account and the overall circumstances, I grant the prosecution's application and will enhance the sentence by 25%.

18.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]

19.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.

20.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

21.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 19 victims). As the sole owner of the BoC Account, he should have retained its ultimate control and paid attention to its transactions on a regular basis.

22.On the other hand, I cannot overlook the fact that an aggregate sum of almost $3.5 million went through the BoC Account within 11 days (including the total sum of $903,934 from 14 victims). By lending his bank account to someone and thus allowing funds of unknown origins to pass through the BoC Account, the defendant played a pivotal role in helping the mastermind(s)  of criminal activities to access their illegal funds without revealing their identities.

23.In the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment[4]. 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 2

24.An aggregate sum of $430,000 odd went through the HSBC Account within roughly 3 weeks (including the $123,034 from 5 victims). 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.

Overall sentence

25.The grand total received by the BoC Account and the HSBC Account was $3.92 million odd. I consider a global starting point of 4 years' imprisonment appropriate and just. With the timely guilty pleas, the overall sentence is reduced to 32 months. Apart from this, I see no other mitigating

factors which warrant any further reduction. With the 25% enhancement, the final overall sentence becomes 40 months. Hence, I order the sentences for both charges to run concurrently. The total prison term for Charges 1 and 2 is 40 months.