Read the full judgment text of CAAR 6/2011 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 February 2012 before Yeung VP, Cheung JA, Yuen JA.
Criminal law – money laundering – Dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence – Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance – sentencing – review of sentence under section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance – respondent convicted after trial – sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment suspended for two years – whether sentence manifestly inadequate – whether there were special circumstances warranting suspension – role of remittance agent – failure to verify client identities and make transaction records – whether defendant knowingly dealt with illicit money or merely had reasonable grounds to believe – Court of Appeal held that the amount of money involved and duration of offence are important sentencing factors – fact that money was not entirely 'illicit money' does not render offence less serious – respondent's voluntary participation in criminal activities – remittance agent who abused her position to launder illicit money – starting point should not be less than five years – discount for good record, background report, loyalty to husband, and review application – original sentence of 18 months suspended for two years manifestly inadequate and inappropriate – sentence varied to immediate imprisonment for four years.
Legal issues: Whether the sentence for money laundering was manifestly inadequate · Whether there were special circumstances warranting suspension of sentence
Outcome: The application for review of sentence was granted. The respondent's sentence was varied from 18 months' imprisonment suspended for two years to immediate imprisonment for four years.
Cites 2 cases