電話騙案的量刑指引？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v HUNG Yung Chun and KO Tien Ping - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：唐兆傑副庭長及關淑馨上訴法庭法官 - 判決日期：2010年8月31日 ### 案情摘要 兩名申請人HUNG Yung Chun（第一申請人）及KO Tien Ping（第二申請人）因涉及電話騙案，在區域法院承認串謀詐騙 (conspiracy to defraud) 罪名。第一申請人承認第6及第8項控罪，第二申請人承認第3、第5及第8項控罪。區域法院暫委法官林嘉欣以3年監禁為量刑起點，認罪後減免三分之一，再根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》加刑50%。第一申請人總刑期為3年9個月，第二申請人總刑期為4年6個月。兩名申請人均就判刑申請上訴許可。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於區域法院對電話騙案的判刑是否過輕，以及上訴法庭應否為此類案件訂立量刑指引。申請人爭辯判刑較洗黑錢案件嚴苛、對電話騙案不知情，且有良好紀錄。控方則認為電話騙案比街頭騙案更嚴重，且有組織性，應提高量刑起點。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，電話騙案比一般街頭騙案更為嚴重，因為受害人所承受的恐懼和壓力更大，且通常涉及巨額損失。法庭指出，此類騙案有組織性，且犯案者專程來港犯案，增加警方偵查難度。因此，法庭決定將此類電話騙案的量刑起點由3年提高至4年監禁，並將根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》的加刑幅度定為三分之一。法庭亦強調，判刑的目的是阻嚇潛在罪犯，與犯案者的身份或國籍無關。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了HKSAR v Tan Meiyuan & Ors, CACC360/2008，指出專程來港犯案是加重刑罰的因素。此外，亦引用了HKSAR v Yang Cheng Lin, DCCC494/2009，該案指出電話騙案受害人承受的恐懼和壓力比街頭騙案更大，判刑應更高。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭將兩名申請人的量刑起點調整為4年監禁。第一申請人總刑期增至4年3個月，第二申請人總刑期增至5年監禁。法庭亦為此類電話騙案訂立了量刑指引，即一般量刑起點為4年監禁，並根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》加刑三分之一。 ### 判決啟示 本判決為電話騙案確立了新的量刑指引，將量刑起點提高至4年監禁，並將《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》下的加刑幅度定為三分之一。這反映了法庭對此類有組織、針對長者且造成嚴重心理和財政損失的騙案採取更嚴厲的態度，對未來同類案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 HUNG Yung Chun and KO Tien Ping - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Tang VP and Hon Kwan JA - Date of Judgment: 31 August 2010 ### Factual Background The two applicants, HUNG Yung Chun (1st Applicant) and KO Tien Ping (2nd Applicant), pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud in the District Court in relation to phone deception cases. The 1st Applicant pleaded guilty to charges 6 and 8, and the 2nd Applicant to charges 3, 5, and 8. Deputy District Judge Lam adopted a starting point of three years' imprisonment, applied a one-third discount for guilty pleas, and enhanced the sentence by 50% under the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance. The 1st Applicant received a total of 3 years and 9 months, and the 2nd Applicant 4 years and 6 months. Both applicants sought leave to appeal against their sentences. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues were whether the District Court's sentences for phone deception were unduly lenient and whether the Court of Appeal should establish sentencing guidelines for such cases. The applicants argued that their sentences were harsher than those for money laundering, that they were unaware of the phone deception nature, and that they had clean records. The prosecution contended that phone deception was more serious and organized than street deception, warranting a higher starting point. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that phone deception cases are more serious than common street deception cases due to the greater fear and stress experienced by victims, often involving substantial financial loss. The court noted the organized nature of these scams and the involvement of non-local perpetrators specifically traveling to Hong Kong, which complicates police investigations. Consequently, the court decided to increase the starting point for phone deception cases from three years to four years' imprisonment and set the enhancement under the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance at one-third. The court also emphasized that the purpose of sentencing is deterrence, irrespective of the offender's identity or nationality. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited HKSAR v Tan Meiyuan & Ors, CACC360/2008, which established that traveling to Hong Kong solely to commit a crime is an aggravating factor. It also referred to HKSAR v Yang Cheng Lin, DCCC494/2009, which highlighted that victims of phone deception experience greater fear and stress than those of street deception, justifying higher sentences. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal adjusted the starting point for both applicants to 4 years' imprisonment. The 1st Applicant's total sentence was increased to 4 years and 3 months, and the 2nd Applicant's to 5 years' imprisonment. The court also laid down sentencing guidelines for phone deception cases, setting a general starting point of 4 years' imprisonment, with a one-third enhancement under the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance. ### Key Takeaways This judgment establishes new sentencing guidelines for phone deception, raising the starting point to 4 years' imprisonment and setting the enhancement under the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance at one-third. This reflects the court's stricter stance on organized scams targeting the elderly, which cause significant psychological and financial harm, providing important guidance for future similar cases. --- ### 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.