Case Document

100%

DCCC 814/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 814 OF 2011

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

	HKSAR
	v.
	YANG MIAOFENG
------------------------

Before:

H.H. Judge E. Yip

Date:

2^nd December 2011 at 9:31 a.m.

Present:

Miss Lisa Go, Public Prosecutor, of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR.
Mr. Andrew Bruce, S.C., instructed by Messrs. Cheung & Choy for the Defendant.

Offence:

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

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

Charge and facts

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to money laundering. Within a span of 3 days in April 2010, a sum of money in U.S. currency, equivalent to slightly over $1m Hong Kong currency, was remitted into her bank account in Hong Kong. She was in Nigeria but redirected the money in 3 batches into an account owned by a remittance agent through E-banking. There were 1 deposit and 3 withdrawals in all.

2.There is no evidence that she was privy to the commercial fraud which reaped the said sum of money.

Personal background and mitigation put forward

3.She is now 27 years of age, a Mainlander. With her husband, she has been selling solar panel manufactured in the Mainland to buyers in Nigeria and other countries for 6 years. She was arrested when they arrived here en route to the Mainland. She has no previous conviction here or elsewhere.

4.Her counsel submits on the small number of transactions to move the proceeds, the scheme being unsophisticated and short-spanned, and the international element not extensive. She has made full restitution.

Sentencing considerations

Factors to consider

5.As the range of criminality may differ tremendously between cases, the Court of Appeal does not find it feasible to lay down any sentencing guidelines (HKSAR v Shing Siu-ming [1999] 2 HKC 818; HKSAR v Hsu Yu-yi CACC 159/2009).

6.Relevant factors should include “the nature of the offence that generated the laundered money, the extent to which the offence assisted the crime or hindered its detection, the degree of sophistication of the offence and perhaps the defendant’s participation, including the length of time the offence lasted and the benefit he derived from the offence.” (HKSAR v Javid Kamran CACC 400/2004, as per Yeung JA at para. 35)

Comparable sentences

7.The prosecution and the defence have put forward a number of sentenced cases. I have sorted out the 2 most proximate here.

8.In Javid Kamran (above), the defendant was a drug trafficker who used his own bank accounts to knowingly launder drug proceeds of slightly over $1m in 18 months with no international element. The starting point (for Charge 5) was reduced from 4 years to 3 years on appeal.

9.In Secretary for Justice v Choi Sui-hey [2008] 6 HKC 166, the defendant had laundered $1.1 m on 6 occasions over 6 months and was about to launder another sum of $0.75 m before arrest. There was an international element. The Court of Appeal regarded that the proper starting point should be 3 years.

Sentencing this Defendant

10.I accept her counsel’s mitigation based on the small number of transactions to move the proceeds, the scheme being unsophisticated and short-spanned, and the international element not extensive. Her criminality is lower than Javid Kamran (above) and Choi Sui-hey (above), both pitched at 3 years as the starting point. I take 27 months here. Her plea of guilty attracts a one-third discount. Full restitution takes 4 months off. There are no other mitigating factors. Her sentence is 14 months.