HKSAR v. Ou Jiejing

DCCC316/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 316 OF 2011

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, you have been convicted after trial of two offences 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 Laws of Hong Kong.

2.The offences relate to bank accounts opened in your name, the first being a Bank of China account, Charge 1, into which a sum of $2,645,700.75 was deposited between 5 January 2006 and 30 May 2009 and the second a Shanghai Commercial Bank account, that is charge 2, into which a sum of $3,722,133.45 was deposited between 6 June 2008 and 22 June 2009. 

3.During the time that these two bank accounts were operational from 2006 to 2009 when substantial deposits were made into both of these accounts no tax returns were filed by yourself disclosing any income.  Neither, I have found, have any credible explanations been given for the existence of these funds in the accounts.  The suspicion is that the funds have come from illegal bookmaking but I emphasise I have on the evidence been unable to come to any finding of fact of such.  I have stated in my reasons for verdict and I reiterate here that some of the transactions appearing in both accounts may well be perfectly legitimate but that does not account, I have found, for the many many individual transactions of substantial sums of money flowing in and out of both accounts.

4.You are 42 years of age, married with a daughter of 17 and you are of hitherto good character.  I have a background report before me which indicates that you have been a responsible wife and have taken good care of your daughter.  Clearly these offences are out of character and I can tell you that it gives me no pleasure whatsoever to have to sentence you today.

5.Regarding sentence, there are no sentencing guidelines for offences of this nature as the circumstances on a case by case basis can vary so much.  However, it is clear that deterrent sentences must be passed as money laundering is an attempt to legitimise the proceeds of criminal activity.  The total amount this court is concerned with flowing in and out of both accounts between January 2006 and 2009 over a period of some three years is approximately $6.3 million. 

6.As far as Mr Oderberg’s submission concerning the fact that this court was unable to identify with any certainty the indictable offence from which the property was derived, it is perfectly well-established that the nature of the indictable offence from which the money was derived should be of no particular significance in sentencing save that if the defendant knows that the money was derived from very serious crimes this would be an aggravating feature.  These very comments were enunciated by Woo J in HKSAR v Xu Xia Li CACC395/2003.

7.Taking everything into account I will adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment in relation to each of these offences. I will discount this by 6 months to take account of your hitherto good character coming to 2½ years’ imprisonment on each charge.  Due to the question of totality of sentence, I order these sentences to run concurrently with each other.

Please refer to CACC460/2011 for the relevant appeal(s) to the Court of Appeal.