HKSAR v. Cheung Man Kai

DCCC 91/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 91 OF 2013

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant has pleaded guilty to two charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. The particulars of the 1st charge are that over a period of 4 days in March 2010, defendant dealt with HK$1.55 million odd through a personal bank account. The particulars of Charge 2 are that between 1 March and 16 July 2012 he dealt with HK$459,000 odd, again through a personal bank account.

2.The facts of this case are very straightforward.

3.In essence, the defendant lent his two bank accounts and relevant bank cards to a criminal to use as a conduit for proceeds of an indictable offence in return for a financial reward.  The defendant told the police that he received a total of $20,000 from a criminal called “Fai Gor” as a reward.  This Fai Gor had asked him, and he agreed, to lend him his bank accounts for the purpose of receiving monies.  The defendant made no enquiries as to the origin of the monies.

4.The defendant was arrested on two occasions and on both occasions co-operated with the police. 

5.Two victims have been identified from Singapore and Taiwan as having deposited their own money into the defendant’s bank account.  They were deceived over the telephone into believing that they were recipients of winnings of an overseas lottery.  And as is usual in these cases, they first deposited what would have been called an administration fee before they could collect their big prize money. 

6.There is no evidence that the defendant was aware of the details of the predicate offence.

7.The defendant is 25 years old and a single man. He works as a transportation worker.  He is not a man of clear record.  His three previous convictions are not similar to these charges but are all related to dangerous drugs. 

8.From what he has told the police and from his background, obviously the defendant agreed to lend his bank accounts because it was an easy way to make some money. 

9.Defence counsel has said as much as he can in mitigation on behalf of the defendant and has helpfully submitted a relevant authority with similar facts to the facts of this case. 

10.This offence does carry a maximum of 14 years’ imprisonment, and the courts have always treated these offences seriously.  The courts have said time and time again that without the assistance of money launderers, it would be difficult for criminals to move or hide ill-gotten gains.  Money launderers assist criminals to launder their money indirectly encouraging them in their criminal activities.  From the facts of this case, the defendant is a cog in this particular scheme of deception.

11.There are no tariffs or guidelines for sentence, and I refer myself to the HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 where the Court of Appeal was of the view that it is not appropriate to provide tariffs for this offence as each case has very different circumstances.

12.That authority also runs through what are important and relevant factors to consider when sentencing for this offence. For example, the amount of money involved is significant and that is the loss of the victims, not the benefit to the defendant.  The number of transactions is relevant as is the period of time over which the activity took place. 

13.In considering the culpability of this defendant, I accept his role meant this was not the most serious set of facts for an offence of this nature.  It is in the lower end of culpability.  I have been helpfully referred to the authority of HKSAR v Poon Lok Man CACC171/2012 and that Court of Appeal’s decision.

14.Defendant, please stand up.  I have considered that authority, the facts of this case and mitigation put forward.  The defendant’s plea is his best mitigation today. 

15.I take a global approach to sentence and consider the total amount involved in both charges and the time over which these charges were committed.

16.After careful consideration of the above factors, for both Charge 1 and 2, I will take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.  Defendant is entitled to a discount of 1 year for his plea.  On both charges, 1 and 2, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. Both sentences will be served concurrently, that is a total of 2 years’ imprisonment.  Do you understand that sentence?

DEFENDANT: Understand.