HKSAR v. Wong Kin Sing

DCCC304/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 304 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant, I convicted you of an offence of money laundering, that is, I found that you had reasonable grounds to believe that on 5 March 2009 in Hong Kong, when you dealt with $2.25 million in your solely-owned company Joint Glory’s bank account, they were proceeds of an indictable offence.

2.Despite you setting up this company as you claim jointly with a person called Tang, you say that you were the sole owner and director in name only.  You signed all requisite documents and transferred money blindly on the direction of one Dick Tang. You did not know the source of the funds or anything about the transactions.  You were aware that the whole set-up of your company was out of the ordinary and strange.

3.I found that you wilfully turned a blind eye to operations, actions and conduct of Tang in Joint Glory by reason of you not asking pertinent questions that a common, right-thinking member of the community would ask.  I considered that was indicative of you turning a deliberate blind eye to the highly illicit arrangement being asked of you. 

4.In this case, the $2.3 million which was deposited into Joint Glory’s account was alleged to have been from a sale of cotton knitted fabrics from Joint Glory, your company, to another company called Hechter.  However from the ledger accounts of Joint Glory, it showed no entry of any contract of sale.

5.I concluded and found that the proceeds paid under the letter of credit for the alleged sale of goods from Joint Glory was a sham to disguise or conceal funds which were the proceeds of an indictable offence.  I found that you did not have knowledge that this was a sham but you were turning a wilful blind eye.

6.I am guided by the Court of Appeal case in sentencing in money-laundering cases of HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33.  

7.You are 50 years of age and of clear record. You have been educated up to secondary level and have been in the business of trading or garment business for the past 20-odd years.  You are married with two children aged 18 and 15.

8.As set out in Boma, the charge of money laundering is a serious offence. The maximum penalty is one of 14 years’ imprisonment.  Deterrence is of paramount importance in these offences.  The amount of money here to which I have found you had dealt in was $2.25 million.  As to the nature of the predicate offence, that was one of fraud.  There was no underlying contract the sale.  I found that you did not know the nature but you deliberately turned a blind eye, choosing not to know.

9.In Boma, at paragraph 40(2)(a), Stock VP said:

“...since many offenders will assert ignorance of the origin of the proceeds in question, particularly where the offender has deliberately turned a blind eye, thereby choosing not to know in such a case, it must be recognised that he is nonetheless ‘assisting in the original crime, whether with knowledge or blind-eye knowledge of it. The scheme and purpose of the legislation is to ensure care and honesty in the handling of other people’s money and those who are prepared to handle money on other people’s behalf and turn a blind eye to the source of that money do so at their own risk.”

10.As I said, I did not find that you were aware that you were dealing with the proceeds of an indictable offence.  There was no international dimension in this case.  The sophistication of the offence did include a degree of planning.  There was deceit practised on the bank to achieve the objective of the money passing from Tang’s interest in Hechter back to Tang’s interest in Fortune Grand and Full Interest through the use of Joint Glory.  This was the only transaction. Your role in this was to blindly perform acts as directed by Tang to facilitate the U turn of money.

11.In those circumstances, Defendant, taking into account all those factors I consider a sentence of 2 and a half years imprisonment after trial to be appropriate and that is the term to which you are so sentenced.