HKSAR v. Li Chien Yuan
|
DCCC509/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 509 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.This defendant has pleaded guilty to five charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455. Colloquially speaking, he has pleaded guilty to money laundering. 2.The first four charges involve four bank accounts opened in Hong Kong in the defendant’s name. The amount involved in all five charges total $865,522. 3.The defendant arrived in Hong Kong as a tourist from Taiwan on 26 November 2009. When he attempted to leave on 11 December, he was arrested. 4.Whilst in Hong Kong, he opened four bank accounts at four separate banks, he says at the request of a Taiwanese friend. On the date of his arrival, he opened an account at Standard Chartered Bank and China Construction Bank (Asia) Limited. A few days later, on 1 December, he opened an account at Citic Ka Wah Bank. On the date of his departure, he opened an account at Industrial and Commercial Bank of China Limited. 5.The defendant, after his arrest, co-operated with the police and made a full admission. He admitted opening these accounts at the request of a Taiwanese friend, Chong, and would withdraw money from these accounts when his friend instructed him to. 6.He would get $1,000 to $2,000 reward each time he withdrew money from his own bank accounts. In that two week period in Hong Kong he received approximately $10,000 as a benefit. 7.He knew nothing of the origins of this money, but would withdraw it for Chong at his request. In other words, he was laundering the money for his friend, Mr Chong. He admits he was not sure of the origins of the money nor of the details. He believed the money was from illegal sources. 8.The prosecution did manage to locate two victims connected to the defendant. They were victims of a telephone fraud. They were made to believe they had either won or earned huge sums of money, either as a lottery windfall or investments. As is usually the case with these frauds, they were asked to remit money first to facilitate their windfalls being sent to them thereafter. 9.One victim, a Cao Jun-xi, telephoned in America, remitted up to US$236,000 to various designated bank accounts in Hong Kong. She lost all that money. 10.The second victim was a Umeda Airi, who thought she had earned significant profit of US$150,000, but had to first remit US$260,000, which she did. 11.Both of these victims at some stage during the scam were told to remit money to an account in the defendant’s name, specifically the defendant’s China Construction Bank account. 12.Charge 5 involves an American-Chinese victim, Zhang Hong, who was also deceived into believing she had made huge profits from an investment. She was asked to remit a sum of US$7,655 to the defendant via Western Union as service charges before receiving her profit. This victim remitted this amount of money and it was collected by the defendant at a remittance shop named Wall Street Exchange Limited in Mongkok, Kowloon, on 8 December 2009. 13.He said, under caution, that he collected this money upon Chong’s instructions and handed it to Chong after receiving this amount. 14.The defendant has not admitted he knows the origins of all the funds. However, that is irrelevant. The fact that the prosecution does not show where the funds of Charges 1 to 4 originate from is not fatal or material. The defendant accepts it was or had to be from illegal activity. 15.The defendant has pleaded guilty. He has a clear record in Hong Kong and Taiwan. He is 29 years old, single and looking after his mother. 16.His mother has written two letters mitigating on his behalf. She believes he has been led astray by bad peers and is now remorseful. The defendant has mitigated that he will not be so gullible in the future. His remorse is evident in his plea today. 17.There are no guidelines for offences of this nature. Each sentencing will depend on the facts of each case. 18.There is no evidence he directly participated in the frauds upon these victims, but by opening these bank accounts in order for money to flow through them, he has facilitated the offences. 19.I referred myself to the authority of HKSAR v Xu Xia Li and Another [2004] HKC 16. At page 23, paragraph 18, I quote:
20.As a matter of general principle in money laundering cases, the amount laundered is highly relevant to sentence. Other factors would include the length of time the laundering has subsisted, the sophistication of the scheme if known, the number of persons involved, and whether or not there is an international element. 21.In any event, sentences must contain an element of general deterrence to reflect the damaging nature of this offence. 22.The amount laundered here would be in total under $1 million. It is not the most serious case of its kind. 23.The defendant used his own name to open accounts and collect remittances, and although he is not a Hong Kong resident, it would not have been that difficult to detect him. 24.I do take into account he has come from Taiwan to Hong Kong to commit these offences. 25.I also take into account the frauds themselves are not hugely sophisticated. 26.Lastly, the period of time that this laundering has subsisted is just over two weeks. 27.I have considered the defendant’s clear record, mitigation put forward on his behalf and the factors I have just outlined as being relevant to sentence. 28.Defendant, please stand up. 29.For Charge 1, I take a starting point of 2 years and 9 months. Charge 2, I take the same starting point of 2 years and 9 months. Charge 3, I take a starting point of 2 years. For Charge 4, I take a starting point of 2 years and 9 months. Charge 5, I take a starting point of 2 years. 30.You are, as you have pleaded guilty, entitled to a discount of one-third. 31.After taking this into account, Charge 1, you will be sentenced to 1 year and 10 months’ imprisonment. Similarly for Charge 2, you are sentenced to 1 year and 10 months. Charge 3, you are sentenced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment. Charge 4, you are sentenced to 1 year and 10 months. Charge 5, you are sentenced to 1 year and 4 months. 32.I have taken into account the totality principle and the fact that the accounts were opened within a two-week period, and that it was a considerably short period of time that these offences took place - a period of two weeks. 33.I do order that Charges 1 to 5 be served concurrently; a sentence of 1 year and 10 months.
|
Cases cited in this judgment