虛假交易罪中被告目的的認定？撤銷定罪

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：FU KOR KUEN PATRICK 及 LEE SHU YUEN FRANCIS 訴 HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION - 法院：香港終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ, Litton NPJ 及 Gleeson NPJ - 判決日期：2012年5月24日 ### 案情摘要 本案兩名上訴人因涉及「配對交易」(matched trades) 而被控20項虛假交易罪名，違反《證券及期貨條例》(Securities and Futures Ordinance, SFO) 第295(1)及295(6)條。上訴人於2004年1月至2005年1月期間，在香港交易所買賣衍生權證，利用發行商提供的佣金回贈計劃，透過頻繁的內部交易賺取利潤。他們的交易量巨大，佔相關權證市場總成交量的絕大部分。原審法庭裁定上訴人罪名成立，但上訴法庭拒絕就定罪上訴許可，僅批准就判刑上訴。上訴人隨後獲終審法院批准就定罪上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於《證券及期貨條例》第295(7)條所訂的法定免責辯護是否適用，以及該條文對被告施加的舉證責任是說服性責任 (persuasive burden) 還是證據性責任 (evidential burden)。上訴人爭辯其唯一目的是賺取佣金回贈，而非製造虛假或誤導性的交投活躍假象。控方則認為上訴人有製造交投活躍假象的意圖，以利於他們在交易日結束時以有利價格退出市場。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，上訴法庭錯誤地認為在第295(1)條下已獨立證明罪行時，無需考慮第295(5)及(7)條。法院強調，第295(7)條的免責辯護適用於透過第295(5)(b)或(c)條所指行為構成的第295(1)條違規。法院進一步裁定，第295(7)條對被告施加的是說服性舉證責任，而非證據性舉證責任，這符合《基本法》及《香港人權法案條例》中無罪推定原則的相稱性要求。然而，原審法官在認定上訴人具有次要目的方面的推理存在根本性缺陷，未能充分考慮上訴人「賺取佣金回贈」的唯一目的。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例，包括 HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574 及 HKSAR v Ng Po On (2008) 11 HKCFAR 91，以確立無罪推定原則下說服性舉證責任的合憲性分析框架。此外，亦引用了 Lee To Nei v HKSAR (FACC No 5 of 2011, FACC No 7 of 2011, 30 March 2012) 討論《商品說明條例》中反向舉證責任的相稱性問題。North v Marra Developments Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 42 則被引用以闡述證券市場法規旨在防止人為操縱，確保市場反映真實供求力量的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院裁定上訴得直，撤銷上訴人的定罪及判刑。法院認為，上訴人已成功證明其行為的唯一目的是賺取佣金回贈，而非製造虛假或誤導性的交投活躍假象。由於事件已追溯至八年前，且重審可能導致無罪釋放，因此沒有下令重審。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了《證券及期貨條例》第295(7)條免責辯護的重要性，即使控方能獨立證明第295(1)條下的罪行，該免責辯護仍適用。判決澄清了該條文對被告施加的是說服性舉證責任，並詳細闡述了其合憲性。此外，判決亦批評了原審法官在處理專家證供及推斷被告目的時的「常識」判斷，強調專家證人應遵守行為守則，其意見應基於專業知識，而非推斷被告主觀意圖。 --- ### 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: FU KOR KUEN PATRICK and LEE SHU YUEN FRANCIS v HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ, Litton NPJ and Gleeson NPJ - Date of Judgment: 24 May 2012 ### Factual Background The two appellants were convicted of 20 charges of false trading, contrary to sections 295(1) and 295(6) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (SFO), involving "matched trades." Between January 2004 and January 2005, the appellants engaged in extensive trading of derivative warrants on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange. They exploited commission rebate schemes offered by issuers, generating profits through frequent internal trades. Their trading volume was substantial, often constituting the bulk of the total market turnover for the relevant warrants. The trial court convicted the appellants, but the Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against conviction, only granting leave for sentence appeal. The appellants subsequently obtained leave from the Court of Final Appeal to appeal against their convictions. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was the applicability of the statutory defence under section 295(7) of the SFO and whether it imposed a persuasive or evidential burden of proof on the defendants. The appellants argued their sole purpose was commission farming, not creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading. The prosecution contended that the appellants intended to create such an appearance to facilitate their exit from the market at a favourable price at the end of the trading day. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal ruled that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that sections 295(5) and (7) did not need to be considered if an offence was independently established under section 295(1). The Court emphasized that the defence in section 295(7) applies where a contravention of section 295(1) occurs through acts referred to in section 295(5)(b) or (c). The Court further held that section 295(7) imposes a persuasive burden of proof on the defendant, not merely an evidential one, and that this is proportionate to the presumption of innocence under the Basic Law and Bill of Rights Ordinance. However, the trial judge's reasoning in attributing a secondary purpose to the appellants was fundamentally flawed, failing to adequately consider the appellants' sole purpose of "commission farming." ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574 and HKSAR v Ng Po On (2008) 11 HKCFAR 91 to establish the constitutional analysis framework for persuasive burdens of proof under the presumption of innocence. Lee To Nei v HKSAR (FACC No 5 of 2011, FACC No 7 of 2011, 30 March 2012) was referenced regarding proportionality of reverse onus provisions in trade mark legislation. North v Marra Developments Ltd (1981) 148 CLR 42 was cited to explain the principle that securities market regulations aim to prevent artificial manipulation and ensure markets reflect genuine supply and demand. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal allowed the appeal, quashing the appellants' convictions and sentences. The Court found that the appellants had successfully proven their sole purpose was commission farming, not creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading. No retrial was ordered, given that the events dated back over eight years and a retrial would likely result in an acquittal. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the importance of the defence under section 295(7) of the SFO, which applies even if the prosecution can independently prove an offence under section 295(1). It clarifies that this provision imposes a persuasive burden of proof on the defendant and details its constitutionality. Furthermore, the judgment criticized the trial judge's reliance on "common sense" in assessing expert evidence and inferring the defendants' purpose, emphasizing that expert witnesses should adhere to their code of conduct and base opinions on specialized knowledge, not subjective inferences of intent. --- ### 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.