HKSAR v. Ho Cheuk Him

DCCC 1228/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1228 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charges and facts

1.He pleads guilty to 30 charges of money laundering.  He had adopted a pattern of collecting a sum of money from a remitting agent nearly every other day between late October 2009 and early January 2010.  The total sum was $1,005,132.85. 

2.The monies came from 17 personal senders from 4 countries, ie Australia, France, New Zealand and Singapore.  The withdrawal forms signed by him showed the use of 15 non-existent addresses and 15 phone numbers. 

3.When he was arrested and cautioned, he said his real address and phone number were not those given to the 4 remitting agents.  He collected the monies for “Ah Tung”, who could not open an account. 

4.He had reasons to believe they represented proceeds of indictable offences. 

Personal background and mitigation

5.He is now aged 28, F. 3 level.  He has 3 previous dissimilar records.  He lives with his parents and a brother.  He worked as a concrete finisher after 1 year’s training in the Vocational Training Council.  He then worked as a cross-border driver but the company closed down.  He committed the present offences in the 3 months whilst without a job.  As soon as his mother bought him a secondhand van to operate, he stopped working for “Ah Tung”. 

6.Each time he would go to meet up “Ah Tung” at the remitting agent’s to sign the withdrawal form already filled out by “Ah Tung”.  There were some others who acted like him there.  He handed over the sum collected to “Ah Tung” for a reward of $100 - $300 cash forthwith.   

7.His counsel in mitigation submits there was delay since the arrest on 26 June 2010 through no fault of the defendant.  Prosecuting counsel explains that there was extensive investigation as the plot had involved many participants through no fault of the police or the prosecution.  I have asked the defence for more particulars of the delay but none can be provided.  Given the number of various senders, overseas countries, addresses and phone numbers and the other potential defendants which the defendant now admits to have seen at the remitting agents, I do not consider delay made out as a mitigating factor here.      

Sentencing considerations

8.The courts recognized the extensive permutations of money laundering cases.  There are no sentencing guidelines for the offences in question.  Comparisons between cases are difficult, if at all helpful. 

9.The prosecution has drawn my attention to the recent decision of HKSAR v. A male known as BOMA AMASO, CACC 335/2010.  In response to the prosecution’s request, the Court of Appeal there had identified the features relevant in the sentencing of money launderers.  Stock VP regarded, apart from the amount of money laundered (para 38), as relevant the following factors (para 40):

(1) The nature and penalty of the predicate offence;

(2) The nature of knowledge or belief of the predicate offence on the part of the money launderer;

(3) The international element;

(4) The sophistication of the money laundering offence, including the degree of planning or whether deceit is practiced to achieve the money laundering;

(5) The instance of a criminal syndicate;

(6) The number of transactions and the length of time in the money laundering process;

(7) Subsequent knowledge of the predicate offence evolved from a case of reasonable belief;

(8) The role and acts of the money launderer, including his position and reward.

Sentencing this defendant

10.The defendant was not privy to whatever the predicate offence it was.  He was to stick out his neck to collect the money for “Ah Tung”.  There was an international element.  There were 30 transactions over a period of 2 ½ months. The total was over $1,000,000.  He was to deceive the remitting agents by false addresses and phone numbers.  It took a well-organized syndicate to emplace his counterparts there each time.  He received $100 - $300, which was quite a lure for a few minutes’ presence and a few signatures.

11.Each charge pertains to the same transaction and merits a concurrent sentence.  I take 3 years as the starting point.  I reduce it by one-third for his pleas of guilty.  The sentence is 2 years each to be served concurrently.  I also fine him $100 for each charge.  The total is $3,000.