HKSAR v. Murebwayire Henriette

DCCC 716/2014

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 716 OF 2014

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

---------------------
Reasons for Sentence
---------------------

1.The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence.

2.Her involvement in the conspiracy was to set up a personal savings account in July 2012 into which what appears to be a forged cheque of HK$2.5 million was placed on two separate occasions.

3.The defendant admitted that she had done this at the behest of a Mr Poul Mulumba.  In evidence in court, she said it was for his friend, who did not have an identity card.  She apparently, on her own account, received no reward for this activity, and she accepts this is a case where she had certainly reasonable grounds to believe that the proceeds themselves came from an indictable offence.

4.The defendant is a person of clear record.  She is from Rwanda.  She is aged 41.  She runs a clothing business which involves her coming to Hong Kong and China.  Apparently she has a daughter.

5.In respect of these particular offences, there is no actual tariff of sentence, but the offences are serious, and sentences of imprisonment are imposed.  This case is serious in that it involves potential fraud of HK$2½ million, so we are dealing with a substantial sum.

6.I note that in the case of HKSAR v Ho Chi Hung at 2010 HKCR, HK$2.5 million was laundered.  The starting point of 3 years 2 months’ imprisonment was adopted.  Nevertheless, each case must rely on its own facts, because cases of this nature vary considerably.  Certain factors are important.  Of importance is the amount of money that was agreed to be laundered or dealt with, not the profit received by the defendant.  One must also look at the length of time the fraud continued - here it is not of any particular length of time; the degree of sophistication - well, it involves a forged cheque; the number of people involved - obviously there were more than the defendant, and people more active in the sense of producing the documentation; the importance of an international element - the international element here is the people involved in it, rather than the documentation, which involved a company called Herald Holding in Hong Kong on a cheque presented with Fubon Bank; and also of importance is the defendant’s degree of participation.  She willingly lent herself to this arrangement, rather foolishly, and she was involved in setting up the account; an essential feature of this agreement.

7.I note the basis on which she has made the plea of guilty and the fact that she said in evidence and said clearly through counsel that she has nothing to do with the money and will agree to any order the court makes for it to go back to its rightful owner, and it is agreed that that will apparently be a restitution order.

8.Taking all these factors into consideration, I consider the appropriate starting point for this defendant in respect of this conspiracy is one of 27 months’ imprisonment.  She is entitled to a full one-third discount for her plea of guilty.

9.That leads to an end sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment.  And I will make the restitution order.