DCCC1445/2024

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Leung Chi Ming Eric - 法院：區域法院 (District Court) - 法官：Deputy District Judge M Chow - 判決日期：2025年11月17日 ### 案情摘要 被告是一名的士司機，於2024年7月17日被警方截停。警方在其車內及身上發現大量可卡因及氯胺酮（K粉），街價約1.6萬至2萬港元。被告隨身攜帶12,906港元現金。被告早前已就販運危險藥物罪名認罪並被判處監禁4年。本案爭議在於該筆現金是否應被沒收。 ### 核心法律爭議 核心 legal issue 係根據《危險藥物條例》第56(1)條，該筆12,906港元現金是否應被沒收。控方主張該款項與販毒有關；被告則辯稱該款項為其作為的士司機的合法收入及應對交通意外的預備金，與犯罪無關。 ### 判決理由 法官指出沒收程序屬於 civil in nature，burden of proof 為 balance of probabilities。根據 HKSAR v Chan Chun Hei，控方先需建立 prima facie case，隨後 burden 將轉移至被告證明款項與罪行無關。法官分析被告的財務狀況，發現其聲稱的月入不足以支付其高昂的家庭開支、藥物消費及雜費，且持有大量大面額鈔票不符合的士司機的 business model，因此裁定被告證據不可信。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 Wong Hon Sun v HKSAR 確立沒收的初步證明責任；HKSAR v Chan Chun Hei 闡明沒收申請的法律步驟及舉證責任轉移機制；HKSAR v Ngoma Juma Shabani 說明第56(1)條的適用範圍應盡量寬泛。 ### 裁決與命令 控方勝訴。法官行使酌情權，命令將全部 12,906 港元現金沒收歸政府所有。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調在沒收申請中，法院會審視被告的整體財務邏輯。若被告聲稱的合法收入與其實際支出及持有現金的形式（如大面額鈔票）存在明顯矛盾，法院將傾向認定該款項為犯罪所得。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: HKSAR v Leung Chi Ming Eric - Court: District Court - Judge: Deputy District Judge M Chow - Date of Judgment: 17 November 2025 ### Factual Background The Defendant, a taxi driver, was arrested on 17 July 2024 with cocaine and ketamine (street value approx. $16,417–$20,670) hidden in his taxi and on his person. He was also found in possession of $12,906 in cash. Having pleaded guilty to trafficking in dangerous drugs and been sentenced to 4 years' imprisonment, the court had to decide on the forfeiture of the seized cash. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue was whether the $12,906 cash should be forfeited under section 56(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap. 134). The Prosecution argued the money was linked to drug trafficking, while the Defendant claimed it was legitimate taxi earnings and a reserve for traffic accident settlements. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge applied the principle that forfeiture is civil in nature, requiring proof on a balance of probabilities. Following HKSAR v Chan Chun Hei, once the Prosecution establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the Defendant. The judge found the Defendant's evidence incredible because his claimed income could not cover his monthly expenses (family support, drug addiction, and utilities), and the prevalence of large-denomination notes was inconsistent with a taxi driver's business model. ### Key Precedents & Statutes Wong Hon Sun v HKSAR (on the onus of establishing forfeiture); HKSAR v Chan Chun Hei (on the procedural steps and shifting burden of proof for s.56(1) applications); HKSAR v Ngoma Juma Shabani (on the broad application of s.56(1)). ### Decision & Orders The application by the Prosecution was granted. The court ordered the entire sum of $12,906 to be forfeited to the Government. ### Key Takeaways The judgment highlights that courts will scrutinize the financial credibility of a defendant's claims. Inconsistencies between reported income, actual expenditure, and the physical form of the cash (e.g., lack of small change) can lead the court to conclude that funds are proceeds of crime. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.