HKSAR v. Sun Jiangtao

DCCC 607/2013

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 607 OF 2013

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.The defendant pleads guilty to one count of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap.455.

2.The amount involved was US$149,811.37, which is equivalent to around HK$1.169 million.

Admitted facts

3.Optical Technology Company (hereinafter called “OT”) was a company based in Egypt carrying on importing and scientific equipment business.  Since 2005, OT has engaged in business dealings with a Chinese company named “Ningbo Bohai Import &  Export Company Limited (hereinafter called “Ningbo”), an exporter of medical equipment and outdoor furniture.

4.On 25 June 2012, OT received an e-mail purportedly sent by Ningbo, requesting settlement of all outstanding payments to an HSBC account held in the name of TB Tempo Global Logistics Limited (hereinafter called “TB”).  A letter of authorisation, which purported to confirm the change in transaction arrangement, was sent to OT via e-mail on the same day.  Indeed, Ningbo’s e-mail account was being hacked and the e-mail was sent by fraudsters.

5.In the result, a sum of US$47,637 was transferred by OT to TB’s account. 

6.Having clarified with Ningbo, OT made a report to the authority on 8 August 2012. 

7.Upon the request of OT, Ningbo also made a report to police in Hong Kong on 17 September 2012. 

8.Upon investigation, D, who was the sole signatory of TB’s account, was arrested.  Between 7 July and 27 July 2012, a total of US$149,811.37, including OT’s transfer, was deposited into TB’s account from overseas companies and those sums were transferred out to two accounts held by two Mainlanders within a short period of time.

9.In the cautioned video recorded interviews, the defendant admitted that he opened TB’s account in October 2010 for his logistics business.  In July 2012, his female friend named “Mong Mong” from Guangzhou requested him to receive some money from overseas on her behalf.  In the transaction, he would receive several dozens of US dollars as reward.  Upon Mong Mong’s instructions, he would transfer the money received to designated accounts.

Mitigation

10.Defendant, aged 32, is a Chinese national.  He was educated up to university level.  He set up TB in 2010.  He is also the proprietor of a trading company.  His wife is a housewife and he has a son now aged 9 months.  He is the sole breadwinner of the family.

11.In mitigation, business certificates, medical reports of his son and various mitigating factors are submitted for my perusal. In gist, the defendant is portrayed to be a decent businessman, a family man who committed the present offence by lending his bank account to his female friend Mong Mong without realising the severe consequence.

Sentence

12.Without a doubt, money laundering is a serious offence.  The gravamen of the offence lies in the assistance to criminals to have their crime proceeds legitimatised and deterrent sentence is called for and it is regarded as an effective means to combat serious crimes.

13.In the present case, I accept that the laundering activity did not involve a lengthy period of time.

14.However, I cannot lose sight of the fact that the underlying offence was fraud practice on legitimate businessmen perpetrated by bogus e-mails.

15.Furthermore, an international element is involved in this case and proceeds from fraudulent schemes were transferred into the territory from overseas and we are used as a platform for money laundering and this would no doubt undermine our reputation as an international financial centre of integrity.

16.Having considered everything urged upon me, the cases cited by the defence, the amount involved in this case and all the circumstances, I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment.

17.To reflect his guilty plea, the sentence is reduced to 2 years.

18.Though I have great sympathy with his wife and his son, personal and family circumstances play little weight in sentencing of serious offence as such and do not amount to a mitigating factor affecting the sentence that the defendant fully deserves.

19.Apart from his guilty plea, I see no other mitigating factor that warrants any further discount.

20.In the result, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.