Case Document

100%

DCCC1159/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1159 OF 2010

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

	HKSAR
	v.
	Ononuju Livinus (D1)
	Lei Xiaoyan (D2)

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

Before:

Deputy District Judge A. Yuen

Date:

28 April 2011 at 3.38 pm

Present:

Mr Kenneth Chan, Counsel on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Ian Polson, instructed by Messrs Tangs Solicitors, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 1st Defendant
Mr Oliver Davies, instructed by Wong & Co, for the 2nd Defendant

Offence:

(1) Conspiracy to deal with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (串謀處理已知道或合理相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)
(2)-(3) Dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (處理已知道或合理相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產)

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.D1, you are convicted of one count of Conspiracy to deal with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. D2 also convicted of the same offence and two others counts of dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.

2.Facts revealed that on the 3rd December 2009 a sum of money, approximately US$145,000, was transferred from an account in the United States to the HSBC account of D1’s company. This sum of money was later transferred to the HSBC account of D2’s company and eventually transferred back to the account of D1’s company in Japan.

3.And then on the 11 December and 15 December, two other sums namely approximately US$185,000 and US$295,000 were transferred from the accounts of two law firms in United States into the HSBC account of the 2nd Defendant and most of the money was eventually transferred to D1’s company in Japan.

4.Court found all three sums of money proceeds of indictable offences.

5.There is no sentencing guideline of these kinds of offences except that an immediate term of imprisonment is the norm. Court however will take into account factors including the amount of money involved, defendants’ level of participation and in this case it also involves an international element.

6.In sentencing the defendant, I also take into the account the fact that they have a clear record, their background, the mitigation put forward by their counsel and in D2’s case the totality principal.

7.For the 1st charge for each D1 and D2, I take 3 years as a starting point. Because of their clear records I reduced it to 2 years and 9 months.

8.The 2nd charge, 2nddefendant, I take 3 years as a starting point, 6 months of which to run consecutively to the 1st charge, otherwise concurrent to all other sentences.

9.The 3rd charge, 2nd defendant, I also take 3 years as a starting point, 9 months of which to run conservatively to the 1st charge, otherwise concurrent to all other sentences.

10.Therefore in D2’s case the total sentence is one of 4 years.

A. Yuen
Deputy District Judge

Please refer to CACC190/2011 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.

Related Cases

Ranked by citation overlap · cases that cite each other appear first