Experience sharing session – Lawyer sector
Michael Lintern-Smith Chairman, Anti-Money Laundering CommitteePast-President, the Law Society of Hong Kong30 September 2015
2
• past two years
3
Jan – Mar 2014
4
*further detail below
May 2014
5
May & June 2014
6
Jul 2014
7
HKSAR v Wu Wing Kit and another
[DC Conviction; appeal to CA]
25 August 2014
HH Judge E. Yip
Appeal granted on 5
June 2015
D1: HK$68,950,000
D2: HK$122,350,569.09
D1: solicitor to D2’s husband (long-term client) who transferred money on client’s instructions into firm account and out again on the same day.
D2: deposited and withdrew money from accounts across HK-PRC border
Both convicted
D1: 6 years
D2: 6 years 6 months
*further detail below
Aug & Sept 2014
Jan – Mar 2015
9
Case name Judgment date / judge
Amount involved Role of the accused Sentence
HKSAR v Chen Jianchao
[CA]
9 Jan 2015
Michael Lunn VP & Derek Pang
HKD230,000 2 charges of conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to be proceeds of an indictable offence
Instructed octogenarian by call to pay outstanding debt allegedly owed by son in order to release son.
Enhanced sentence by 10 months in DCt
pursuant to S25 OSCO
Sentencing in CA also enhanced by
one-third (but later discounted
for PGs)
HKSAR v Kuang Yaowei
[DC]
23 Mar 2015
HH Judge Casewell
HKD200,000 Collected money as part of a telephone deception scheme
Convicted 17 months
HKSAR v Chen Chaoqi
[DC]
26 Mar 2015
HH Judge Dufton
HKD90,000 Collected money from elderly lady as part of telephone deception scheme
Convicted 3 years 2 months
Apr – Jun 2015Case name Judgment
date / judge Amount involved Role of the accused Sentence
HKSAR v Liang Jiawei
[DC]
20 May 2015
HH Judge G. Lam
HKD30,000 Defendant came from China to HK to collect money part of deception scheme
Convicted 24 months
HKSAR v Tung Wai Hong
[DC]
1 June 2015
Deputy Judge E Lin
HKD2.77m between January 2008 and November 2010
Account holder of various interbank transfers of amounts disproportionate to the defendant’s state of finance
Convicted Each of the 4 counts 24 months
to be run concurrently
HKSAR v Li Qiming
[DC]
8 June 2015
Judge G Lam
HKD15,000 Defendant came from China to HK to collect money part of a scheme to deceive an elderly woman
Convicted 24 months
Jun 2015Case name Judgment
date / judge Amount involved
Role of the accused Sentence
HKSAR v 阮志偉
[DC] Chinese judgment
11 June 2015
姚勳智 DJJ
Around HKD4.7m between April 2012 and January 2013
Having control over accounts although no evidence of involvement in defrauding the foreign consumers (but noted that there was much planning in the entire scheme)
Convicted 3 years 3 months
HKSAR v Yu Lik Wai William & Another
[DC]
30 Jun 2015
HH Judge C P Pang
HK$250,000 Conspiracy between 2 D’s, 1 being an employee of a company who sought the help of the other D to find people to operate a hotel’s restaurant without consent of his principal for a kickback of $0.98m from ICAC undercover agents (HK$250,000 in envelop as part payment of $0.98m)
Convicted
[sentence to be released]
July – Sept 2015Case name Judgment date /
judge Amount involved Role of the accused Sentence
HKSAR v Yang Pu
[DC]
6 Jul 2015
Deputy District Judge E Lin
US$272,180 -between 26th March 2014 and 18th August 2015; 2 fraudulent schemes involving 3 victims (Russian companies)
Causing company to be set up, opening of bank account in the authority of director, caused 2 sums to be transferred into bank account on instructions of HK business partner, and withdrew the remainder
Convicted 30 months’
imprisonment
HKSAR v Li Yonghong
[DC]
13 Jul 2015
HH Judge Dufton
HK$120,000 Collected money as part of a telephone deception scheme
Convicted 2 years 8 months’
imprisonment
HKSAR v Lei Haifeng
[DC]
HH Judge Dufton
17 Sept 2015
4 charges involving a total of $48,700 and RMB19,000
Collected money as part of a telephone deception scheme
Convicted 4 years’
imprisonment
HK$ 68.95 millionCONVICTED – 25 August 2014
SENTENCED – 6 years imprisonment
13
Source of photo: google
Source: SCMP, 25 August 2014
14
Source: SCMP, 19 September 2014
15
The sentencing guidelinesDerived from HKSAR v. BOMA [2012], per Stock VP (as he then was):
1.The nature and penalty of the predicate offence;
2.The nature of knowledge or belief of the predicate offence on the part of the money launderer;
3.The international element;
4.The sophistication of the money-laundering offence, including the degree of planning or whether deceit is practiced to achieve the money laundering;
Source: Reasons for Sentence, 19 September 2014
16
The sentencing guidelines5. The instance of a criminal syndicate;
6. The number of transactions and the length of time in the money-laundering process;
7. Subsequent knowledge of the predicate offence evolved from a case of reasonable belief; and
8. The role and acts of the money-launderer, including his position and reward.
“It is a category of offence in which the sentencing judge is called upon to engage his “feel” for the case bringing to bear his sentencing experience bearing in mind at all times the mischief at which the legislation is directed.”
Source: Reasons for Sentence, 19 September 2014
17
Now…• Defendants in Wu’s case were found to have
reasonable belief that the monies they dealt with constituted proceeds of an indictable offence.
• Wu appealed to the Court of Appeal
• Appeal not yet heard.
Source of photo: google
HK$14,049,380 from 2 accountsConviction of 2.5 years’ imprisonment quashed
Appeal allowed; No new trial ordered
19
Source of photo: google
Prosecution directed case to “reasonable grounds to believe”
• Trial Judge applied Shing Siu Ming
• CFA: Should apply instead:
▫ Yan Sui Ling (2012) – i.e. “but the real question he had to resolve in this case was whether it was true or might be true that the appellant was prepared to and did take these risks in engaging such services.”
▫ Seng Yuet Fong [1999] – i.e. “to convict, the jury had to find the accused had grounds for believing; and there was the additional requirement that the grounds must be reasonable: that is, that anyone looking at those grounds objectively would so believe.”
The Defendant’s evaluation and perception • There are two questions to be considered:
1. Objective: would a commonsense right-thinking member of the community have reasonable grounds to believe; and
2. Subjective belief of the accused on whether the money was proceeds of an indictable offence.
21
Reason to suspect that proceeds are proceeds of crime…1. Oei Hengky Wiryo v HKSAR [2007] 1 HKLRD
568▫ No need to prove proceeds are actually proceeds of
crime; ▫ Regardless of the subjective belief of the defendant
as to the nature of the proceeds.
2. CF. Pang Hung Fai FACC 8/2013▫ Subjective element in deciding whether money was
proceeds of an indictable offence;▫ Judge entitled to take into account defendant’s
perception and evaluation of facts & matters.
22
HK$721,287,606 (5 charges) between 2001 – 2007Conviction of 6 years
Appealing to Court of Final Appeal
23
Source of photo: google
Application for leave to appeal –Question 1• S25(1):
▫ Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove, as an element of the offence, that the proceeds being dealt with were in fact proceeds of an indictable offence?
▫ Was Oei Hengky Wiryo (2007) 10 HKCFAR 98 wrongly decided on this issue?
Application for leave to appeal –Question 2• S25(1) OSCO – Mens Rea:
▫ To what extent does a trial judge need to make positive findings as to the defendant’s belief, thoughts, intentions at the material time even though the judge rejects the defendant’s testimony?
▫ In particular, where the trial judge rejects the defendant’s testimony, to what extent can the judge remain oblivious to the defendant’s actual reason(s) for dealing with the specified proceeds in making the finding that the defendant had reasonable grounds to believe that the proceeds he dealt with were proceeds of crime?
Leave granted to appeal on both questions
Easily established offence: Ease of the Prosecution to prove the offence without having to prove the
proceed are proceeds of crime
Vs.
Difficulty of proving proceeds are actual proceeds of crime.
… To be heard in the CFA from 31 May 2016 to 2 June 2016
Other appeals to CFA to be heard after Yeung Ka Sing, Carson
• HKSAR v Salim Majed ▫ The operation of the rule against duplicity▫ To be heard 9 June 2016
• HKSAR v Yang Sigai ▫ The operation of the rule against duplicity;▫ S25(1): “Reasonable grounds to believe” (Seng Yuet Fong (1999) vs.
“knew or ought to have known” (Pang Hung Fai (2014);▫ S25(1): P need to prove proceeds = proceeds of criminal offence?;▫ S25(1): whether judge needs to make positive findings on D’s beliefs
& the extent to which the judge can be oblivious as to D’s actual reason for dealing with the proceeds.
▫ To be heard 29 August 2016
28
Source of photo: google
Conflict?
Should the firm cease to act?
▫ Express provision in the retainer on for circumstances of termination of the retainer;
▫ AML checklist – Practice Direction P;
▫ Risk-based approach.
Source of photo: Google
29
Source of photo: google
30