HKSAR v. Chuensri Pattanodom also known as Pemathanapas Chittapon

CACC 294/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 294 OF 2013

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 382 OF 2013)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.The applicant was convicted after trial on one charge of money laundering, for which he was sentenced to 3½ years’ imprisonment. He now makes application for leave to appeal against sentence only.

2.The facts were that the applicant came to Hong Kong in order to set up a company and open a company bank account with the Hang Seng Bank.  He was the sole director and shareholder of the company and the sole signatory to its bank account.  He was also provided with a Personal Identification number for online banking purposes.

3.During a period of five months between 21 June and 24 November 2011, thirty overseas deposits were made in various currencies totaling over HK$5.3 million into the bank account.  During the same period almost the whole of that amount was dissipated by way of online transfers in 68 transactions.

4.The applicant is a Thai national.  When he came to Hong Kong in order to set up the company and open its bank account, he used one passport in one name: when he returned to Hong Kong after the period of the charge, on 24 January 2013, he used another passport in a different name.

5.There are essentially five considerations in any sentence for an offence of money laundering: (i) the amount involved; (ii) the defendant’s level of participation; (iii) the relevant indictable offence (if known); (iv) whether there is any international element; and (v) the length of time during which the offence lasted.

6.In this particular case, the amount concerned was HK$ 5.3 million entering and leaving the account during a period of 5 months.  The records of deposit showed that the money had come from different countries.  90% of the money ended up in a remittance company based in Thailand.  In his records of interview, which were not challenged, the applicant said that he had been asked to set the company up for a Russian who was living in Thailand.

7.The applicant clearly played an important role in the money laundering exercise, having been responsible for coming to Hong Kong and setting up both the company and the company account through which substantial funds were channelled.  The international element is a significant aggravating factor in this case.

8.Although the applicant is 69 years of age, the sentence passed upon him came after trial. I do not consider this appeal to be reasonably arguable.

9.The application for leave is refused.

The applicant appeared in person

Ms Mickey Fung SPP, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent