Between May 2002 and December 2005, the defendant, Lam Meiling, used nine personal bank accounts to launder more than 6.8 billion yuan (CNY), which equals over USD 1 billion. The source of these funds is unknown, and the destination of the money after the defendant transferred the money out of her bank accounts could not be traced either. During the three and a half year period of criminal activity, the defendant did not report any income tax and officially did not own any property. She lived in public housing provided by the government.
On 16 January 2008, the defendant was arrested by the Commercial Crime Bureau for the crime of money laundering.
On 17 June 2011, the defendant accepted a video interview with the police and made the following statements: According to the defendant, the money laundering started when she was instructed by Qin Xia, a female friend who raised the defendant's two children in mainland China, to register as a remittance agent. Under Qin Xia's instructions, Meiling used the relevant bank account to process money on her behalf, without asking about the source of the funds. Meiling received CNY 4,500 (approximately USD 500) from Qin Xia as a monthly payment.
In court, the defendant stated that the money was all related to Qin Xia's business in a factory in mainland China, and was deposited by Qin Xia's business partners, and then transferred to the accounts of Qin Xia's other business partners by the defendant.
Despite the belief that the defendant did not know of the nature of the funds transferred to her accounts, the court decided that considering the high amount of money involved in the case, the duration of the crime and the number of bank accounts, the defendant was not fully ignorant.
High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Court of First Instance)
At trial, the defendant was found guilty of the charge of dealing with property that is known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable crime and sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.
According to the court, the reason she was convicted to ten years' imprisonment despite the mitigating circumstances and despite the maximum penalty being 14 years, was because she had already received a significant fine in August 2002, which should have encouraged her to become more vigilant. The court noted the need for deterrence in such cases. It further noted that when such a serious charge is involved, the defendant's personal factors, such as family and low education level, do not constitute a reason for the reduction of the sentence.
High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Court of Appeal)
The defendant appealed against the first instance judgment arguing that the sentence in this case was too high. She argued that the trial judge had accepted the case did not involve cross-border laundering, that the defendant did not know the nature of the indictable crime involved, that the defendant was not the mastermind of the case and that the amount involved is certainly an important sentencing consideration but should not be the only consideration. For these reasons, she argued the sentence should be lowered.
The Court of Appeal rejected these considerations as warranting a lower sentence, reiterating that in such cases deterrence is the primary consideration for sentencing. Thus, the judgement of first instance was upheld.
The defendant was 61 years old at the time of the first conviction and 62 at the time of her appeal. She was born and got married in mainland China. According to court documents, it was said that she never received an education. She moved from Dongguan to Hong Kong SAR in 1989 and then worked as a food delivery driver in a restaurant. In August 2002, she was fined 27,000 CNY (approximatively USD 4,000) for two crimes including failing to keep proper records as a remittance agent.
Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455) s 25
Dealing with property that is known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable crime
High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Court of Appeal)
