Case Document

100%

DCCC244/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 244 OF 2009

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

	HKSAR
	v.
	Lee Yok-hwa

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

Before: Deputy District Judge Tallentire

Date: 21 August 2009 at 9.48 am

Present:

Ms Virginia Lau, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR
Mr Philip Geoffrey Ross, instructed by Jack Fong & Co., assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the Defendant

Offence:

(1) to (9) Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence
(處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.You pleaded guilty to four offences of dealing with property known or believed to be the proceeds of an indictable offence, each contrary to sections 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455. You admitted the facts and I convicted you on those facts.

2.You pleaded not guilty to five other offences which were not proceeded with and left on the file.

3.The facts were these: the National Bank of Ethiopia opened an account with Citibank, New York, many years ago. The National Bank of Ethiopia gave instructions to Citibank via the inter-bank telecommunication system SWIFT message. On 29 September 2008, Citibank received forged bank documents from a courier purportedly sent by the National Bank of Ethiopia requesting Citibank to accept instructions by fax. Citibank acceded to the request.

4.On 10 and 16 October 2008, Citibank received two payment instructions by fax purportedly sent by the National Bank of Ethiopia and, as a result, Citibank remitted US$998,000, which was the first remittance, and US$976,820, which was the second remittance. This was from the National Bank of Ethiopia’s account to an account of Jumbo Valley Investment Ltd with DBS Bank (HK) (this is recorded as Account A) according to the said instructions. NBE had neither requested to give instructions by fax nor authorised the remittances in question.

5.Jumbo had been incorporated in the British Virgin Islands in 2006. At all material times, you were the sole shareholder and authorised signatory of Account A, which you opened in 2006.

Charge 1

6.On 14 October 2008, US$997,953.55, the first remittance minus the transaction fee charged by DBS, was credited into Account A.

Charge 3

7.At about 1128 hours on 15 October 2008, you went to the head office of DBS and withdrew US$450,000 from Account A. That was changed to HK$3,488,175. At about 1248 hours you deposited that amount into an account held by Saadiah Binte Khamis at Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, which is Account B. That was Charge 3.

Charge 7

8.You then went to the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank at about 1525 hours that day and deposited HK$3,155,764.50 into Account B. That was Charge 7.

Charge 9

9.On 17 October 2008, US$976,785, the second remittance minus the transaction fee charged by DBS, was credited to Account A.

10.On 31 October 2008, you were arrested whilst withdrawing US$4,000 from Account A at DBS. Various bank documents were seized from your hotel. You were interviewed under caution and you alleged you met a man called Gabriel and his wife Saadiah in Kuala Lumpur. Gabriel had become your business partner. In respect of that first remittance to Account A, Gabriel had wired this amount to his account and requested it to be transferred to Saadiah’s account in Hong Kong. In return, you were to receive HK$184,000.

11.On 13 October 2008, you brought Saadiah to the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank in Hong Kong to open an account. You had withdrawn the amount on three occasions on 15 October 2008 and deposited it into the account. You deposited the $184,000 into your Hongkong and Shanghai Bank account. You said you had no idea how the second remittance was deposited into your account.

12.I was told that you are a man of clear record. On your behalf, Mr Ross entered mitigation. I was told that you were 54, married, with three children, and a Malaysian national. By your occupation you were a project manager who also traded in oil and petroleum. The company, Jumbo Valley, had been established for this second project. You earned approximately HK$20,000 per month.

13.Mr Ross told me that you had been introduced to a man called Gabriel, a Nigerian, and his wife, Saadiah, by a friend in Kuala Lumpur. Gabriel had expressed an interest in investing in Hong Kong. He had asked for details of Jumbo and the bank account of Jumbo. Gabriel had come to Hong Kong and you had a meeting with him at the Sheraton in Tsim Sha Tsui. It was agreed that money would be sent to your DBS account, to be withdrawn and to be used to set up a company run by the wife of Gabriel. Therefore, you just followed Gabriel’s instructions without any inquiries as to its origins. It was agreed the total amount involved in these matters was just over HK$15 million.

14.I was referred to various sections of Archbold, paragraphs 41 to 175(?) and to the case of HKSAR v Xu Xia Li , CACC395/2003, as to a general approach to sentencing.

15.It was agreed that for money laundering there is no tariff. It was accepted that you had received HK$184,000 for your assistance. Also it was accepted that all but HK$1 million had been recouped.

16.Mr Ross emphasised that you were but a cog in the machine and not the mastermind and that the scheme, so far as you were concerned, was not a sophisticated scheme. You had offered and tried your best to assist the prosecution.

17.Money laundering is a serious and widespread activity. This case involved an international aspect of money coming from abroad and this tarnishes the image of Hong Kong as a centre of honest trading. The sums involved are large, over $15 million. In mitigation of your role, I accept that your part in the scheme was unsophisticated; that you were merely a cog in the machine, although an essential and well-remunerated cog, receiving some $184,000. You had been entirely co-operate from the outset and had done your best to assist the authorities. I also took into account the decision reported in Chinese of HKSAR v Lee Ka Ki, CACC148/2007, with the money laundering of 16.7 when a starting point of 3 years was approved of. However, the full facts of that case were not before me.

18.In this case, I have regard to all the circumstances. I take into account your substantial remuneration and the international aspect, both of which are aggravating features.

19.In this case, I take as a starting point 4 years’ imprisonment. You have pleaded guilty, you are entitled to a discount of one-third. That will be reduced to 32 months for your plea of guilty.

20.You will therefore go to prison for 32 months on each of these charges, to be served concurrently.