HKSAR v. Huang Sheng Che
|
DCCC1373/2011 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1373 OF 2011 ----------------------
----------------------
-------------------------- Reasons for Sentence -------------------------- Charges 1.The defendant enters a plea of guilty to two charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence, preferred against him under section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455. Facts 2.The facts to which he agrees are as follows. 3.Between April and June 2011, a Singapore resident Ms Tan received phone calls from unidentified persons informing her she had won a diamond watch in a lottery. 4.Ms Tan was told to pay an administrative fee to collect the prize. As a result she made a total of four payments into three bank accounts in the name of three companies in Hong Kong, but was in the end unable to obtain the prize. 5.She made a report to the police of Singapore, and her case was then referred to Hong Kong police for investigation. 6.Police investigation revealed that the defendant was the sole director of EON International Trading Limited, which was one of the three companies in question. 7.Between 16 and 30 June 2011, 11 remittances, eight of which came from Singapore, including one from Ms Tan, in the total amount of HK$1,267,674.77 were deposited into EON’s account, and the money was dissipated shortly after it was received (Charge 1). 8.Further, the defendant was found to have opened an account in his own name. Bank records showed that between 17 August and 9 September 2011, seven remittances were received into this account from Singapore. The total amount involved was HK$539,355.68, which was likewise dissipated quickly upon receipt (Charge 2). 9.The defendant was arrested on 26 September 2011 when he entered Hong Kong from Taiwan. He admitted to the police he had laundered the money referred to in the charges at the direction of another person for a reward of $5,000 Taiwanese currency. Conviction 10.The court finds the defendant guilty as charged. 11.The defendant has had a clear record in Hong Kong and elsewhere prior to his current conviction. Mitigation 12.In mitigation, the defence puts forward the following matters for the court’s consideration. 13.The defendant is now 41 years old and has received education up to Form Three level in Taiwan. He has had numerous low-income jobs and was a casual worker at construction sites at the time of his arrest. 14.His parents are aged and in poor health. They are fully dependent on the defendant, who is the only son of the family. 15.Counsel for the defence reveals to the court that the defendant has been cohabiting with his girlfriend in Taiwan for the last four to five years. At the time of the defendant’s arrest in September last year, his girlfriend has been expecting. Due to his remand in custody, the defendant has no idea whether and when his girlfriend has given birth. 16.The defence urges the court to take into account the following mitigating factors -
17.As to the defendant’s reason for committing the offences, counsel explains the defendant owed his relatives a debt of about $100,000 Taiwanese currency and that he had committed the offences for financial gains. Discussion 18.Money laundering is a serious offence. The reason is clear and simple. Many serious crimes would not have been committed but for their potential of financial gains to the offenders. 19.Crimes know and respect no borders, nor does the movement of proceeds of crime. The international community, of which Hong Kong is an active member, has awakened to this phenomenon and has called for a joint effort to tackle money laundering. 20.There is no sentence guideline in offences of money laundering, so each case depends on its own facts. 21.The court has considered the case of HKSAR v Javid Kamran CACC400/2004, and in particular, paragraphs 34 to 36, and the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545 referred to by the defence. In terms of factors to be taken into account in sentencing, the two cases appear to be very much in line with each other. 22.In the case of SJ v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201, the Court of Appeal said in paragraph 15:
23.In the case of HKSAR v A male known as Boma AmasoCACC335/2010, the Court of Appeal urged the sentencing court to have regard to the statutory maximum of this offence, namely, 14 years. 24.Acknowledging the amount of money laundered to be a significant factor to be considered, the court there refrained from providing a sentence guideline which might result in the amount becoming “the be-all and end-all of a case.” Instead, the court provided a non-exhaustive list of factors to be taken into account in sentencing. 25.It seems clear from the list that while knowledge of the predicate offence is an aggravating factor, the lack of it is no mitigation. Further, when the predicate offence is known, the court can take into account its nature and likely punishment when sentencing the money launderer. 26.In the instance case, the court notes the minor role of the defendant in the criminal operation and the relatively small amount of his benefits. However, the total amount laundered was in the order of $1.8 million, and the offences took place in the course of several months. 27.There is clearly an international element in the two offences. The victims, and there seems to be many of them, were residents outside Hong Kong; they were unlikely to recover their loss. And the defendant came to Hong Kong from Taiwan to commit the crime. 28.Hong Kong is famous for its tourism industry and would welcome visitors from all over the world. The court has a duty to protect Hong Kong from criminals who come into Hong Kong in the guise of tourists with premeditation to commit crime. 29.The defendant’s conduct has tarnished the good reputation of Hong Kong as a world financial centre. In all the circumstances, the court would adopt a starting point of three and a half years’ imprisonment to reflect the overall criminality of the offences. 30.Financial hardship is never a strong mitigation. Apart from his clear record and guilty pleas, none of the defendant’s personal and family circumstances would warrant any additional discount. In the court’s view, the defendant should have known well that his girlfriend was pregnant with his child at the time of the commission of the offences. Conclusion 31.A starting point of three years would be appropriate for Charge 1, which is reduced by one-third on account of the defendant’s clear record and guilty plea to one of two years’ imprisonment. A starting point of two years’ imprisonment will be adopted for Charge 2, to be reduced likewise by one-third to one of 16 months’ imprisonment. 32.Having considered the principle of totality, the court orders that four months of the sentence for Charge 2 should be served consecutively to the two years’ imprisonment for Charge 1, making a total sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment. Order 33.For the two offences of which he stands convicted, the defendant is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years and four months.
|
Cases cited in this judgment