HKSAR v. Leung Chi Fai

DCCC650/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 650 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, two weeks ago you had been convicted, after trial, of one charge of bookmaking (Charge 1) and one charge of dealing with property knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that it represented the proceeds of an indictable offence (Charge 2).

2.In Charge 1, evidence of a very substantial bookmaking operation had been discovered when the police had raided your flat pursuant to a gambling authorisation and found betting records principally from files contained in your notebook computers.

3.According to the computer and the gambling experts called by the prosecution, whose evidence I totally accepted during the trial, there are altogether a total of a 124 computer files which contained illegal bettings on soccer and basketball.  From the various gambling websites revealed, there was one anonymous general agent.  According to the analysis and the opinion of the gambling expert, you are the anonymous general agent.  There are seven agents working under you and each agent could be identified by a code number and the agent dealt with bets placed by altogether 20 customers with code names.  The betting was made on soccer and basketball matches, with a total betting amount of HK$4,401,987.76, and Renminbi $1.3 million-odd covering the period from 22 March 2010 and 10 June 2010. 

4.The charge of dealing with the proceeds of an indictable offence, or what is more commonly known as money laundering offence, related to the money received or deposited into your bank account at the Hang Seng Bank.  According to the banker’s affirmations, a total sum of about HK$2 million in cash was deposited into your account between 1 June 2009 and 11 June 2010.  All the cash deposited was either transferred to other bank accounts or withdrawn from your account in the form of cash.  The cash withdrawals alone in the period amounted to $443,700 and the ATM transfers amounted to $1,577,718.

5.On the other hand, according to the records kept by  the Inland Revenue Department you worked as a salesman in a company called Wing Fung Second-hand Electric, with a reported annual income of only $108,000 between 1 April 2009 and 31 March 2010. 

Record and background of the defendant

6.You are now aged 32.  You have a clear record. You are married and you have a newborn son, who is only 4 months old.  As said, you work as a salesman and the company for which you were working was in fact your elder brother’s second-hand audio visual company. 

7.Because of your background I did not proceed to sentence you forthwith after conviction.  Instead I obtained a background report on your behalf.  This afternoon I have an opportunity of reading the report.  In this report you made no attempt to confess to the crime for which you have been convicted but you have mentioned that your involvement in the illegal soccer betting by stressing that you yourself was a victim of illegal soccer betting because, through the bad influence of your friends, you came to lose a lot of money in the illegal soccer betting.   Learned counsel for the defence suggested that although it is not stated clearly, but perhaps it is the underlying reason why you came to be involved in the present two offences.

8.As far as the charge of bookmaking is concerned, the Court of Appeal had said, as early as in 1993 in the case of R v Yim Kam Fai & Anor (CACC108/1993), that “anyone who facilitated gambling beyond the limits permitted by the legislature, on a scale such as the present case had to expect to be dealt with severely by the courts.  The operators of a substantial bookmaking operation could expect to receive a sentence of between 2 and 3 years' imprisonment after trial.” 

9.Your counsel has submitted to me that the scale of this operation for which you have been operating is small, and although there is the presence of the Renminbi illegal soccer bets received during the period, due to the closeness of the economy of both Hong Kong and the mainland one should not rule out the possibility that in fact the Renminbi betting records were indeed in relation to bets placed by the Hong Kong citizens.

10.Even if I were to accept the submission on this point that there was perhaps the lack of international element, from whatever angle one looks at it, this is still a very substantial gambling operation.  I would not ignore the fact that it was committed very close to the opening match of the World Cup football match.  As said, a large amount of money was involved, and the use of sophisticated and advanced technology, such as computer and website was also involved.  There were also sub-agents working under you.  Therefore in my mind a suitable starting point must be 3 years for this offence. 

11.As far as the money laundering offence, the total amount of money involved which was deposited into your bank account is close to HK$2 million.  In a recent case of the Secretary of Justice v Wan Kwok Keung (CAAR13/2010), the Court of Appeal had reiterated that the starting point is about 3 years when the black money involved is between HK$1 million to HK$2 million. 

12.Now, the two offences are of a completely different nature and, as a matter of principle, wholly concurrent sentences are not appropriate.  But I do accept that there is some overlap between the two offences.  And especially taking into account the fact that the black money handled by you from this money laundering offence is actually from the bookmaking offence for which you have operated, I order that the six months of the Charge 2, to run consecutively to the sentence I imposed on Charge 1, making a total sentence of 3½ years’ imprisonment. I am not satisfied that you have the means to meet the financial penalty and so I would not impose a financial penalty order in your case. 

有關向上訴法庭提出的相關上訴，請參閲CACC490/2011。