HKSAR v. Pan Wen Sung

DCCC1230/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1230 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleaded to 7 charges of dealing with the proceeds known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence. The offences were all committed between 4 and 17 June at two banks and five money exchange facilities in Hong Kong.

2.The defendant is obviously part of a large international syndicated operation.  He came to Hong Kong for the purposes of opening bank accounts and arranging for money transfers for monies transferred to Hong Kong from Taiwan, from Singapore and the Philippines and from Australia.  In essence the defendant was a bag man for this international syndicate of swindlers involved in an advanced fee fraud scheme concerning a lottery with cash prizes scam.

3.The facts show that when in Hong Kong the defendant rented cheap accommodation and he was then directed to open a number of bank accounts and monies were transferred into those accounts and he arranged for transfers out.  He was not, in fact, arrested on his first trip to Hong Kong.  He arrived in Hong Kong on 3 June and left some 11 days later.  He returned to Hong Kong later on 29 June and this was from Taiwan intending to withdraw $80,000 from the Standard Chartered Bank account which he had previously opened. 

4.He went to the bank the next day - this was the branch on Nathan Road in Kowloon - intending to withdraw HK$80,000.  The teller was alerted that the account might hold suspicious funds and therefore tried to stall the defendant while the police were called.  The defendant was asked to return the same afternoon.

5.Soon after the police arrived at that branch it became known that the defendant was withdrawing $80,000 from another branch of the Standard Chartered bank, this one also on Nathan Road at 219 Nathan Road.  When the police officers arrived at that branch, the defendant had succeeded in withdrawing the money and he was immediately arrested at the scene by the police. 

6.Under caution he admitted that he had come from Taiwan and, although originally a construction worker, he had been unemployed for some time.  He told the police that he saw a classified advertisement in Taiwan and was hired by a company.  He said he had been to the company on three occasions, the first time for interview, the second time to collect an air ticket to Hong Kong and the third time to make purchases in Hong Kong. 

7.The defendant told the police that his job nature was for him to come to Hong Kong, open bank accounts, receive money for his boss.  Some Hong Kong staff of the company would then direct him to buy luxury items which he would bring back to his manager in Taiwan and he said that he would given a salary of $30,000 Taiwanese dollars for every 11 days of work.

8.He first arrived in Hong Kong on 3 June and, on the instructions of his manager, he called a man on the phone.  The man told him that his boss will be remitting money to Hong Kong later and the defendant was to rent a room at a guest house in Yau Ma Tei and to open bank accounts the following morning.  The following day he opened three bank accounts at the Standard Chartered Bank and told the bank there that they were to be used for fund investments.  He also opened three bank accounts with Citibank. 

9.During the material time monies were deposited on only one of the accounts from each of the banks.  With the money withdrawn from the bank accounts, as well as with money obtained from money exchange agents, the defendant bought over 20 watches, a few handbags and returned to Taiwan on 14 June.  He gave the property he purchased and some $200,000 in cash to his manager in Taiwan.

10.He was then asked to return to Hong Kong to withdraw the remaining balance of $80,000 in the Standard Chartered bank account and to purchase watches and handbags as on the previous occasion.  He arrived on 29 June and, upon arrival, called a man and was told to rent a room at a guest house in Jordan.  According to the defendant he would receive $10,000 Taiwanese dollars as remuneration for the trip. 

11.The defendant claimed not to know any of the swindlers or victims who claimed that they had been deceived in an advanced fee fraud involving lottery with cash prizes scam.  I am told that the total of amount of money involved was $973,095.38 and that the sum $80,000 is still left in the account in Hong Kong.

12.I am told that the defendant has a clear record both here and in Taiwan.  He is 34 years of age.  He was born and raised in Taiwan and received secondary education there.  He has previously worked as a factory worker and construction worker.  He is a divorced man who lives with his family.  His parents are in their late 50s.  His father, sadly, had a stroke in 2005 and has been incapacitated since then.  His three siblings are married and are unable to contribute towards the parents’ upkeep. 

13.He says that he committed this offence out of greed and also to try and help out his father whose treatment requires the spending of huge amounts of money in medical expenses.  His mother is unable to work because she cannot take care of the father.

14.These offences are serious.  As I said, this was an organised syndicated operation of international dimensions involving a number of countries.  People who run the risk of acting for such organisations must appreciate that if they are caught, they face serious consequences. Deterrent sentences have to be passed. 

15.In respect of the 1st charge, I take a starting point of 3 years and I reduce that by one-third to reflect the guilty plea.  In respect of the 2nd charge, I take a starting point of 4 years and reduce that to 32 months to reflect the guilty plea.  For the other offences I take a starting point of 2 years and reduce that to 16 months to reflect the guilty pleas. 

16.I considered the question of totality and I order that 6 months on Charge 2 shall run consecutive to Charge 1 and that six months of Charges 3 to 7 shall run consecutive to Charges 1 and 2. 

17.The total sentence therefore will be one of 3 years’ imprisonment.