HKSAR v. Wang Wei Ling

DCCC260/2009

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 260 OF 2009

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to Charge 4 and 5, namely dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455.

2.(a) Charge 4: - involved an account with the HSBC and the amount was 302,269.71.

(b) Charge 5: - involved an account with the Citibank, the amount was HKD 77,400 and USD 74,980.

The total was about HK$964,513.71.

3.The defendant pleaded not guilty to Charge 1, 2 and 3, the prosecution offered no evidence against the defendant. These charges are now left on court’s file and not to be proceeded with without the leave of the court.

The facts of the case

4.The defendant was a Taiwanese. She came to Hong Kong on 3 December 2008. Upon her arrival, she opened four bank accounts including the HSBC and the Citibank accounts. She opened a checking account with the Citibank on 5 December 2008. On 4 December 2008 she also opened another bank account with the other bank. A total of six accounts.

5.The defendant left Hong Kong to the Mainland on 6 December 2008 and returned to Hong Kong on 8 December 2008.

6.As to the HSBC accounts, she received the following sums:

(i)  8 December:- HK$125,200 from Taiwan;

(ii)  9 December:- HKD 31,145 from Canada;

(iii)  11 December:- HKD 114,889.71 from Taiwan;

(iv)  12 December:- HKD 31,035 from Canada.

Total - HKD 302,269.71 (Charge 4).

(v)  The defendant withdrew money and leaving a balance of HKD 31,569.71 as of 12 December 2008.

7.As to the Citibank account, she received three lots of money:

(i)  9 December:- USD 12,990 from the States;

(ii)  10 December:- HKD 77,400 from Australia;

(iii)12 December:- USD 61,990 from the States.

Total - USD 74,980, HKD 77,400 (Charge 5), about HKD 662,244.

8.Most of the money were withdrawn by the defendant. On 12 December 2008 when the defendant withdrew $470,000 from the bank, the staff found it suspicious and reported the matter to the police. She was then arrested. The balance in the account was HKD 899.73 and USD 61,990.36 as of 7 January 2009.

9.The police found two subscriber identity module cards with the defendant. One was broken into two pieces.

10.Under caution, the defendant said, inter alia, that:

(1) She was a waitress since October 2008 and met a person called Ah Fat.  She was asked to open and operate bank accounts in Hong Kong and she would  be rewarded NTD 50,000 in a month;

(2) She arrived at Hong Kong with Ah Fat on 2 December 2008.  She was given HKD 20,000 as living expenses and stayed in a hotel in Mongkok;

(3) She opened several bank accounts.  When money was deposited into her accounts she withdrew money from the accounts and gave it to Ah Fat on the same day;

(4) On the day of arrest, Ah Fat told her to withdraw $470,000 from the bank;

(5) Ah Fat also gave her two subscriber identity cards for communications.  She was asked to delete all phone records;

(6) She broke one of the subscriber identity module cards into two pieces because she did not want the police to find Ah Fat;

(7) Ah Fat also took her to China to open four bank accounts.

Criminal record

11.The defendant has a clear record.

Mitigation

12.The defendant is now 27 years of age, single, a university graduate. At the time of the commission of the offence, the defendant was in financial difficulty. She wanted to repay the debt, therefore she took up this job with Ah Fat. After a few transactions, she already felt suspicious about the matter.

13.The defendant’s family, her parents and her sister all wrote letters to this court from Taiwan saying that the defendant was a simple and straightforward person and therefore she fell into this trap. She took out loans to further her studies. At the same time she wanted to repay the loans soon, that was the whole reason for her to commit the present offence.

Reason for sentence

14.The maximum sentence for Charge 4 and 5 is one of 14 years. The amount of the money involved was just slightly less than 1 million (HKD 960,000).

15.The defendant is a Taiwanese resident. Before she embarked her journey to Hong Kong, she already knew that she was recruited to open and operate various bank accounts. She religiously carried out her duty as soon as she arrived at Hong Kong. She opened four accounts on the first day and two more accounts on the following two days. Money from unknown sources started to flow into her accounts daily from different parts of the world, from Taiwan, Canada, the United States and Australia. They were of considerable sums. The defendant was asked to withdraw $470,000 on 12 December 2008 by Ah Fat and that raised the suspicion of the bank staff and that was how she was arrested.

16.In mitigation the defence said that there was no evidence to suggest that the money deposited into her accounts represented an indictable offence.

17.The defendant was employed as a waitress in Taiwan. When she came to Hong Kong, she was given HKD $20,000 as living expenses. She checked into a hotel of which the room rate was $300 per day.

18.According to her admission, she would be paid NTD$50,000 in a month and that means she was expected to work for at least a month. She was not a Hong Kong citizen. She was asked to come to Hong Kong to open six different bank accounts to receive different funds from different countries and to withdraw the money to Ah Fat. She was given two cards to contact Ah Fat and was asked to delete all telephone contacts. She broke one of the contact cards so that police could not find Ah Fat. She knew that this was a serious matter. After she was arrested, she went further to protect Ah Fat from being arrested.

19.Within a period of five days, her accounts already received about $960,000. Had she not been arrested, she would continue to receive money and withdraw money from the bank.

20.Section 25 does not require the prosecution to prove that the money was in fact from an indictable offence. However, with all this information in mind and given the intellectual background of the defendant, being a university graduate, any reasonable person would have a reasonable ground to believe about the source of this fund in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, represents any person’s proceeds of an indictable offence.

21.There was no doubt that the courts regard money-laundering offences as very serious offence. As said in the judgment of HKSAR v Xu Xia Li CACC395/2003, Woo JA said this:

“Money-laundering is treated as a serous offence.  If money-laundering offences were allowed to be carried out in Hong Kong with impunity or treated lightly with minor penalties, it would mar Hong Kong’s reputation as a world-class financial and banking centre.”

22.The amount of the money involved has a bearing on the sentence. In the present case, it was just a little under HK$1 million. Charge 4 is about 300,000. Charge 5 is about 660,000.

23.Also, there is an international element that the defendant travelled from Taiwan to Hong Kong with a view to operate her bank accounts by withdrawing unknown funds. Apart from the defendant, there was Ah Fat, other unknown men in Taiwan, in Canada, the United States and Australia in sending money into her accounts in Hong Kong.

24.To this end, having considered the nature of the case, mitigating factors, the transactions, the total amounts, the defendant’s clear record and her guilty plea, I consider a starting point of 2 years for Charge 4 and 2½ years for Charge 5 is appropriate to reflect the criminality of the offence. I reduce to 16 months on Charge 4 and to 20 months on Charge 5 to reflect her guilty plea. 10 months in Charge 5 to be run concurrently to Charge 4; a total of 26 months’ imprisonment.