HKSAR v. Wong Wai Hong

DCCC972/2011

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 972 OF 2011

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.I have convicted the defendant, after trial, of one count of dealing with proceeds of an indictable offence, in short money laundering. I dealt in full detail in my verdict with regards to the prosecution’s case.

2.The defendant is 30 years old, a man of clear record, and seemingly worked since he has left school.  He is currently single.  The youngest of seven siblings.  I have been told he is a filial son and obviously not a man of bad character. 

3.This offence, he says, was committed when he met a female who asked to use his account.  Over a period of six weeks, over six transactions, 1.2 million-odd Hong Kong dollars was deposited into his personal account.  He did not ask any questions.  If his explanation is true, then clearly he has turned a blind eye when glaringly obvious questions should have been posed.  And if the explanation is not true, he did it for financial gain. Not all of the money deposited was withdrawn, leaving what I see is a fee or reward behind in the account.  In facts like this that scenario is not uncommon.  After the last deposit on record the defendant closed his account the day after.  This could possibly have been done on the advice of those perhaps who asked him to use the account or paid him to use the account.

4.These offences are serious, and I have come to realise that often gullible or greedy people have no idea how serious these offences are.  Laundering proceeds of crime in this manner is designed by criminals to enable criminals to avoid detection.  The masterminds evade detection.  These offences can damage Hong Kong’s reputation as an international financial centre and the fight against money laundering is paramount.  The court must play its part in deterring these offences, which is why terms of imprisonment are inevitable.  It is this that people like this defendant I feel do not appreciate when they turn a blind eye or receive a reward for what seems an innocuous request using one’s account a few times.

5.The authorities I have been referred to show that no guidelines can be set or devised for these offences.  There are too many different scenarios and varying degrees of culpability.  In HKSAR v A male known as BOMA AMASO CACC335/2010, the Honourable Mr Justice Stock VP sets out clearly in  paragraph 25 the difficulty and undesirability of setting guidelines.  He says that it is a category of offence in which the sentencing judge is called upon to engage his feel for the case.  And I will engage a feel for the case in considering sentence. 

6.And what I feel is that this defendant is foolish as opposed to a sophisticated criminal.  What I also need to consider relevant are the following.  The maximum sentence is 14 years.  There was a total of six transactions over six weeks, totalling about HK$1.2 million.  The reward I find to be the reward for the defendant is not a significant amount.

7.The defendant is a Hong Kong resident who has allowed his Hong Kong bank account to be used.  He has not come here as a tourist to make use and abuse the Hong Kong banking system.  There is no evidence that the money derives from a sophisticated international syndicate. There is no evidence the defendant had knowledge of the predicate offence.  I will accept that he is a cog in the wheel.  If he was the mastermind he would not have used his own account.  Lastly, the defendant’s previous clear record is very relevant, and this will reflect in the starting point I find appropriate. 

8.Defendant, please stand up.  After considering the facts of the case, the relevant factors I have just set out, the mitigation put forward on defendant’s behalf, I will take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months.  The defendant was convicted after trial.  There is no further discount for show of remorse.  However, I will give a further discount of 2 months for the defendant not challenging the prosecution’s case, except insofar as he challenged his record of interviews.

9.Defendant is ultimately sentenced to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.