HKSAR v. Meng Caiyi

On 19 August 2026, the Court of Appeal (K Yeung JA) handed down judgment in HKSAR v. Meng Caiyi (CACC 58/2026, [2026] HKCA 1531), granting the applicant an Appeal Aid Certificate covering both conviction and sentence, and directing that his out-of-time application for leave to appeal be placed before the Full Court directly. Mr Marcus Lee, SPP, appeared for the respondent; the applicant appeared in person.

The applicant, a Mainland resident, came to Hong Kong in July 2023 and opened two bank accounts (Standard Chartered and Hang Seng), of which he was the sole signatory. Funds from victims of an online cryptocurrency investment scam were subsequently deposited into both accounts, totalling over HK$2.25 million in AC2 and over HK$4 million in AC1. He was intercepted on re-entry in July 2024. In his cautioned statement, he admitted accepting RMB1,000 from a casual friend "Ah Lung" for opening AC1, knowing it would be used for receiving proceeds from deception cases, and handed over the bank card, internet-banking credentials, and SIM card to Ah Lung.

On 29 December 2025, Deputy District Judge K Lo sentenced the applicant to 42 months and 15 days' imprisonment after he pleaded guilty to two charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455. Charge 1 alleged he acted alone in respect of AC2; Charge 2 alleged he acted together with Ah Lung in respect of AC1. The applicant filed his Form XI out of time on 12 February 2026.

K Yeung JA expressed concern as to the bases upon which the pleas of guilty were accepted. At §§28, 34, 35 and 46 of the sentencing remarks, the sentencing judge observed that there was no evidence the defendant knew the details of the scam operation, and that his role was limited to lending the bank accounts for use by others. Having considered HKSAR v Salim Majed (CACC 184/2013) and 律政司司長 對 谢志建 [2025] HKCA 911, K Yeung JA expressed concern during the hearing as to whether the agreed facts supported the two counts, especially on actus reus (§11). The problem was accentuated by the fact that Charge 1, contrasted with Charge 2, alleged that the applicant committed the offence alone.

The Court directed that an Appeal Aid Certificate be granted covering both conviction and sentence, and that the application for leave be placed before and considered by the Full Court directly (§12). The applicant, having been informed of his entitlement to apply for bail pending appeal, declined to do so (§13).

The Court noted that similar legal and factual issues had arisen in at least two other cases, CACC 260/2024 and CACC 438/2025. The common issue identified is whether the mere opening, lending and surrendering control of a bank account are sufficient, both in terms of mens rea and actus reus, to support a charge of money laundering (§14). CACC 260/2024 has been set down for hearing before the Full Court on 20 November 2026. The Court directed the Department of Justice to consider the issues involved in all three cases and place before the Court within 21 days proposed directions as to whether all three (and other similar cases) should be heard together on that date.

Why It Matters

Practitioners advising clients charged with money laundering offences arising from the lending of bank accounts to third parties should expect the Full Court to address whether the actus reus and mens rea requirements under section 25 of Cap. 455 are satisfied by conduct limited to opening, lending, and surrendering control of an account. Pending the Full Court's determination, prosecutors and defence counsel should consider whether pleas of guilty in similar cases remain appropriate on the agreed facts, and whether existing cases should be adjourned or stayed.