香港特別行政區 訴 鄧立迅

On 17 August 2026, Deputy District Judge Tsui Yee Mei handed down judgment in HKSAR v Tang Lupixun (鄧立迅), DCCC 310/2024, convicting the defendant on two counts of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence under s.25(1) and (3) of Cap. 455 (the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance). Ms Chan Wing Sum (SCO) and Mr Wan Pui Hin (DO) appeared for the prosecution. Mr Tse Chi Ho SC and Mr Lai Ho Yeung, instructed by Li Ting Kwong Wong Ho Chun Solicitors, acted for the defendant.

The defendant, then aged 21 to 22, was alleged to have dealt with HK$3,894,768.03 in his Hang Seng account ("Account 1") and HK$195,807.01 in his HSBC account ("Account 2") between March 2018 and February 2019. The prosecution case was that the defendant had voluntarily provided his personal bank accounts and Jockey Club betting account to a figure called "幣少" (Coin Master) to receive customer payments for FileCoin mining machines, a cryptocurrency called "FCC", and an investment scheme called the "進寶計劃" (Jinbao Plan). The prosecution pointed to the gross disproportion between the defendant's known financial position and the volume and pattern of cash deposits, withdrawals, and transfers.

The defence did not contest that the defendant was the sole authorised holder of the accounts or that he had handled the funds. The defendant testified that he genuinely believed 幣少's business was legitimate, citing packed seminars, customers receiving products, and 幣少's ostensible success. He claimed cross-account transfers were to "increase turnover" (流水) to upgrade his bank account tier.

The Court's Holding

The court held that: (1) the defendant's testimony was rejected as incredible, riddled with internal contradictions and implausibilities across multiple areas, including his claimed partnership business, his "turnover-boosting" rationale, his role in 幣少's operations, and his use of the Jockey Club account (§§124-171); (2) applying the test from HKSAR v Yeung Ka Sing Carson (2016) 19 HKCFAR 279 and HKSAR v Harjani Haresh Murlidhar (2019) 22 HKCFAR 446, the cumulative weight of objective facts known to the defendant (no employment contract, no MPF contributions, no formal invoices or accounting, WhatsApp-only reconciliation with no backups, cash-heavy transactions, personal accounts used for company receipts, two Australian accounts opened in his own name, and the demonstrably fraudulent nature of the 進寶計劃 as evidenced by three complainants) meant that any reasonable person in his position would necessarily have reasonable grounds to believe the funds represented proceeds of indictable offences (§§181-188); and (3) the actus reus was established as the defendant personally operated all transactions (§174).

The defendant was convicted on both counts.

Why it matters

For practitioners defending money-laundering cases under Cap. 455 s.25, the case confirms that the "reasonable grounds to believe" limb is assessed objectively through facts actually known to the defendant at the time. A defendant who lends multiple personal accounts (including a betting account) to receive customer payments, with no formal records, no employment contract, and no MPF contributions, will struggle to displace the inference under HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo that the account holder had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were criminal proceeds. The court's detailed rejection of implausible "innocent explanation" narratives also signals that such accounts will be closely scrutinised against banking records.