District Court Judge acquits defendants of Money Laundering involving HK$54 million.

D1 and D2 (who were de facto husband and wife) faced a total of 9 counts of money laundering alongside with 7 other defendants. The prosecution’s case against D1 and D2 is that their various bank accounts and D1’s Hong Kong Jockey Club (“HKJC”) account had a large amount of cash transactions which were “disproportionate” to the income declared on their tax return, and two ATM cards belonging to other persons were discovered at the residence of D1 and D2’s family.

All defendants made applications for permanent stay of proceedings. After hearing evidence and detailed submissions, the Court stayed the proceedings of D8 and D9.

Both D1 and D2 were arrested but released unconditionally more than 10 years ago. While DDJ Don So rejected D1 and D2’s application for permanent stay of proceedings, the Court recognised that the passage of time naturally made it difficult for them to recollect the details of the transactions in question. Considering the voluminous defence exhibits tendered, the Judge accepted D2’s evidence in Court (for herself and as a defence witness of D1) as well as that of other defence witnesses.

The Judge found that the large amount of cash transactions in D1 and D2’s accounts can be explained by their cash-intensive businesses, including a bakery, a tuck shop, a massage parlour, and an importing business. There is also evidence that D1 and D2 engaged in the trading of taxi licences and various financial instruments. These facts are sufficient to demonstrate D1 and D2’s wealth, and these income sources are not taxable and therefore would not be reflected in their tax returns. Evidence also shows that D1 has an active habit of gambling, both in cash with his friends and with the HKJC. This explains the large amount of transactions in his HKJC account.

As for the ATM cards, the Court agreed with the defence submissions that the cards being found in D1’s and D2’s abode per se is insufficient to show that D1 had any knowledge of their existence, let alone his having possession of the same or his handling of the money therein.

Accordingly, D1 and D2 were found not guilty of all charges. All other defendants in the case were also acquitted.

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui for D1 and D2 in the 26-day trial. The Reasons for Verdict was published on https://lnkd.in/gHDsDaYZ