HKSAR v. Moulay Driss El Abbassi

DCCC567/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 567 OF 2012

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant has been convicted after trial of this money laundering offence. The amount involved is, I will repeat, €2,645,981.78. That would equal at today’s rate approximately HK$26,460,000-odd. As I said in my verdict, a vast sum of money.

2.I do not intend to repeat the facts of this case.  I gave full reasons in my verdict.

3.I found there was no evidence that the defendant directly participated in the fraud or theft perpetrated on the victim company. I found there was not enough evidence to find he knew he was at the material time dealing with the proceeds of an indictable offence. 

4.I found ample evidence to find he had reasonable grounds to believe the property he was dealing with represented the proceeds of an indictable offence.  I found he turned a blind eye in return for a financial benefit and payment.

5.The defendant is a single man, 28 years old, and a French national.  In France as well as in Hong Kong he has had up until now a previous clear record.  I have been told that he comes from a humble background but has an entrepreneurial streak and tried to better himself. 

6.Defence counsel has said as much as he can in mitigation.

7.This offence carries a maximum term of imprisonment of 14 years.  The court views this offence seriously.  It has been said time and time again that without the assistance of money launderers it would be more difficult for criminals to move or hide their ill-gotten gains.  Money launderers assist criminals to launder money, indirectly encouraging them in their criminal activities.

8.It also has an effect on Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial centre, affecting its integrity. 

9.The courts have taken a robust view in sentencing to reflect the seriousness of the offence and its prevalence.  There will always be a deterrent element in sentencing these offences.

10.There are no tariffs or guidelines for this type of offence.  Each case is to be decided on its own facts.  Relevant facts vary too much from case to case to give guidelines.  That is not to say there are no relevant factors the court can consider in arriving at an appropriate starting point. 

11.The amount of money involved is significant and relevant.  The number of transactions are relevant.  Here it could be described as three transactions totalling that amount.  The period of time over which the money laundering activity occurs is also relevant.  Here, three days. 

12.It is relevant the defendant has come to Hong Kong for the sole purpose of dealing with these ill-gotten gains. 

13.The benefit derived by the defendant is also relevant, and in this case a significant amount.

14.It cannot be argued that there is no international element in this case.

15.I would also look at the degree of sophistication of this laundering scheme.  It is not particularly high.  The defendant has made use of an existing bank account. 

16.It is also relevant to consider the defendant’s role, and as I have said, I do not find enough evidence to prove he knew the proceeds were of an indictable offence.

17.Defendant, please stand up. 

18.Having regard to all the facts, your role, mitigation put forward on your behalf, and the relevant factors I have just listed above, I find a term of imprisonment of 4 years appropriate.  You are convicted after trial, there is no reason for any discount to that sentence. Accordingly, you are sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.