HKSAR v. Kwok Tsz Yau

DCCC667/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 667 OF 2009

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

----------------------  

Before:   Deputy District Judge Tallentire

Date: 28 August 2009 at 9.53 am

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1. Defendant, you pleaded guilty to a single offence of dealing with property known or believe to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence contrary to sections 25(1) and 25(3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance Cap.455.  You admitted the facts and I convicted you.  Briefly the facts were as follows.

2. PW1, Shum Mei-yuet, a mainlander, incorporated a shoe company in Hungary.  Via an internet chat line she came to know a male who claimed to be Lee Tung-leung.  Around November 2008 PW1 came to know that Lee was an investment adviser in Hui Tong Finance and Investment Co. Ltd.  She asked Lee if she could become a client.  She submitted an application form but received no reply. 

3. Upon Lee’s instructions PW1 remitted US$100,000 into the bank account of a male named Lee Kim-chung on 10 November 2008 to purchase 400 shares of the company at $US250 per share.  Later, a person claiming to be a Mr Lee of Hui Tong’s accounts department phoned and told her that her investment made a profit of US$2,608,000.  She was asked to pay 2 per cent as commission before she could get her profit. 

4. On 21 November 2008 she remitted US$52,160 to a male called Chik Chi-leung.  PW1 was later induced to make further remittances to a number of bank accounts opened by individuals in Hong Kong.  Two were made to your account at Nanyang Bank on the 10th and 28 December 2008 for US$200,000 and US$182,560 respectively.  PW1 suffered a loss of US$1,286,720. 

5. Female Ling Poh-geok, PW2, a Singaporean, came to know a male Yang via the internet.  He claimed to work for a company in Taiwan called Yu Ma International Investment Corporation and he was to be seconded to Hong Kong for a couple of months.  Yang recommended PW2 to invest in 500 Standard and Poor index since it yielded good returns.  PW2 remitted a sum of SGD7,000 to an account with DBS Bank in the name of Lam Tai-wan on two separate occasions.  Later, a colleague of Yang, Mr Ma,telephoned her and told her she had made a profit of SGD1,960,690 but had to pay commission.  Therefore, she remitted three sums of Singaporean dollars to your Nanyang Bank account, namely $16,996.28, 16,991.31 and $20,000.  These sums were remitted on 10th, 12th and 15 December 2008 respectively. 

6. PW2 was induced to make further remittances to the bank accounts.  Her last remittance was on 16 January 2009.  She then realised it was a scam.  She had lost SGD110,000. 

7. During police investigations your bank account at Nanyang Bank was found to have received funds from victims in investment frauds.  The account had been opened on 29 October 2008 and closed on 5 March 2009 at the bank’s initiative.  During this period there were 22 inward transfers and 22 outward transfers of sums totalling $3,715,813.70.  The whole amount of each of the inward transfers was withdrawn in cash on the same day. 

8. On 5 March of this year you were arrested and interviewed under caution.  You said, (1); that you opened three bank accounts on behalf of Ah Yeung, giving all the passbooks and ATM cards to him; (2), you assisted in withdrawing money receiving $300 to $500 as a reward; (3), whenever money was to be withdrawn Ah Yeung would phone you and give you the bank passbook for you to withdraw cash over the counter of the bank; you had done this more than 20 times and you had received more than $10,000 reward; (4), you said you were suspicious of Ah Yeung but opened accounts as you were in need of money, you knew you should not lend your account to others; (5) you never checked with the bank about the source of the money remitted.

9. You are a man of hitherto clear record.  Given your clear record and age I adjourned the case for a probation officer’s Background Report prior to sentence.  That report is now before me and apart from one matter which has been corrected was largely agreed by you. 

10. Miss Lin, on your behalf, had provided written mitigation and for that I am extremely grateful.  You are 25 years of age, single and a casual worker.  From the probation officer’s report you appear evasive and reluctant to face up to your criminality.  Your clear record, plea of guilty and co-operation with the police is emphasised.  Miss Lin stressed that you had not taken part in the frauds.  The total amount of money laundered was about HK$3.7 million and you had received about $10,000 by way of reward. 

11. Miss Lin referred me to the case of Li Ka Ki CACC148/2007.  That case involved the laundering of some HK$16.7 million.  A starting point of 5 years had been reduced to 3 years.  She submitted that a lighter sentence was appropriate in this case. 

12. In sentencing you I took into account the facts of the case, the contents of the background report, the nature of the charge and the mitigation advanced.  I noted your clear record.  Money laundering is a very serious offence.  It is a prevalent offence in Hong Kong.  The amount involved here is 3.7 million, a not insubstantial amount.  For that you received $10,000 by way of reward. 

13. There is here an international dimension given the nationality of the victims involved in the frauds.  This dimension tarnishes the image of Hong Kong as a clean banking centre.  I do accept that you took no part in those frauds.  However, the funds did flow into your account from abroad.  The probation officer’s Background Report is not particularly favourable.  As I have said previously, you appear evasive and unwilling to face up to your criminality.  You tried to minimise your involvement.  In my opinion, this is not an expression of full remorse although again I accept that you were co-operative with the police and you have pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity.  What you said to the police amounts to a full confession. 

14. Stand up, please.  In all the circumstances I take, therefore, as a starting point 45 months’ imprisonment reduced to 30 months.  You will go to prison for 30 months.