Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Handling proceeds of crime

Legal area

Court

27 Apr 2026

香港特別行政區訴譚浩一

Citation

[2026] HKCA 796
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC118/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge correctly applied sentencing principles: the applicant actively participated in serious telephone scams targeting elderly victims and knowingly handled proceeds; the one-third guilty-plea discount already reflected his cooperation and admissions; s.27 Cap.455 aggravation was properly invoked and reasonably modulated to 25%; the aggregate sentence of 56 months was not manifestly excessive and involved no error of principle.
2 Apr 2026

香港特別行政區訴周玉芬

Citation

[2026] HKCA 588
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC309/2025

The application for leave to appeal out of time was refused because it was filed without reasonable explanation for the two‑plus month delay and the proposed grounds were not arguable: they contradicted the applicant’s admissions and documentary records, did not undermine the basis for the withdrawals‑based calculation of proceeds (HK$4,610,278), and the original sentencing starting point of three years was not manifestly excessive given the scale, duration and direct conduct involved.
16 Feb 2026

香港特別行政區訴馬家傑

Citation

[2026] HKCA 239
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC203/2024

The court held the trial judge correctly assessed the totality of evidence (D1's testimony, CCTV, WhatsApp voice/texts and applicant's recorded interview); identified inconsistencies were not central and did not undermine D1's reliability; the evidence against the applicant was overwhelming; no reasonable prospect of success on appeal was shown, therefore leave was properly refused.
21 Jan 2026

香港特別行政區訴鍾卓嵐

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 414
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA288/2025

The appeal was dismissed because, on the correct factual chronology, the appellant committed offences during a relevant police bail period such that the trial judge lawfully ordered the sentences to run consecutively with the other money‑laundering sentence; any misstatement of chronology by defence counsel did not render the sentencing decision legally wrong or manifestly excessive.
16 Jan 2026

香港特別行政區訴何天藍

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 217
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA139/2025

The court found that the appellant occupied a pivotal active role in the laundering operation (a "runner" who knew transaction details), that the nature of money laundering warrants deterrent immediate custodial sentences absent exceptional circumstances, and that the magistrate's adoption of a 24-month starting point, reduction by one-third for plea and a further limited deduction for personal mitigation produced a justified 12-month immediate sentence. The sentencing decision was not plainly excessive and the appeal against sentence is dismissed.
15 Oct 2025

香港特別行政區訴張翠

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5561
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA445/2024

Given the amount processed (approximately HK$2.23 million), the frequency of transactions and the appellant's facilitation role, a custodial starting point of 25 months was appropriate; a 25% discount for a guilty plea entered on the first day reduced the sentence to 20 months which is not manifestly excessive; appeal dismissed.
2 Apr 2025

香港特別行政區訴黃耀勤

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2660
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA283/2024

On a full rehearing of the evidence the court found that the appellant’s account showed a pattern of high‑frequency, split deposits and large cumulative receipts from an unknown principal over a short period; the appellant failed to make reasonable inquiries or safeguard against suspicious funds; applying the Harjani test a reasonable person with the appellant’s knowledge would have believed the funds were proceeds of crime; conviction and the 12‑month immediate custodial sentence were therefore upheld.
7 Jan 2025

香港特別行政區訴曾新強

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 836
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA395/2024

Given appellant's actual role as sole director and authorized signatory, his facilitation of opening and operating the accounts, knowledge of the co-defendant's London-gold related fraudulent activity, prior bank restrictions and police inquiries, and the cash withdrawals from the accounts, a reasonable person with the same knowledge would have believed the funds were proceeds of crime; therefore the conviction for handling criminal property under Cap.455 s25 is upheld.
30 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴馮卓烽

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3716
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA317/2024

The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the training centre order because the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor legally erroneous given the seriousness of handling proceeds from a phone‑scam targeting an elderly victim, the appellant's repeated reoffending (including offences while on bail and disciplinary breaches in custody), lack of remorse, and the greater rehabilitative utility of a longer training centre order for this juvenile offender.
26 Jul 2024

香港特別行政區訴楊峻皓

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2141
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA55/2024

The court accepted the prosecution's concession that undisclosed company documents could have materially affected the defence and credibility assessments, rendering the conviction unsafe; accordingly the court allowed the appeal against conviction, quashed the conviction and set aside the sentence, without ordering a retrial because the prosecution did not seek one.