虛假交易罪中被告目的的舉證責任？撤銷定罪

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：傅果權及李樹源 對 香港特別行政區 - 法院：終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：包致金常任法官、陳兆愷常任法官、李義常任法官、烈顯倫非常任法官、紀立信非常任法官 - 判決日期：2012年5月24日 ### 案情摘要 兩名上訴人因涉及「對敲交易」（matched orders）被控20項作出虛假交易罪，違反《證券及期貨條例》（香港法例第571章）第295(1)及295(6)條。他們在2004年1月至2005年1月期間，透過香港交易所買賣由麥格理銀行發行的衍生認股權證。兩名上訴人利用佣金回扣計劃，以相同價格互相買賣認股權證，並在收市時售出，從中賺取佣金回扣。原審法官裁定他們有造成虛假交投活躍表象的意圖或罔顧後果，並認為他們有附帶目的，即造成市場交投活躍的表象以確保能以有利價格離場。上訴法庭拒絕就定罪上訴許可，但准許就刑罰上訴。 ### 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)條所提供的免責辯護是否適用，以及該條文向被告人施加的是說服責任（persuasive burden）還是提證責任（evidential burden）。上訴人辯稱其唯一目的是「佣金承包」（commission farming），而非造成虛假或具誤導性的交投活躍表象。控方則認為上訴人有附帶目的，即造成交投活躍的表象以利於離場。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，上訴法庭錯誤地認為第295(7)條的免責辯護不適用於本案。法院強調，第295(7)條的用語明確向被告人施加說服責任，而非僅提證責任，且此說服責任是合憲的。法院認為，被告人最能證明其行為目的，且要求其證明其說法屬實的可能性較高，是與維持有序公平證券市場的合法社會目標相稱。原審法官在處理第295(7)條時，錯誤地假設控方須承擔說服責任，且其關於上訴人有附帶目的的裁斷缺乏事實基礎。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗關於逆轉舉證責任及無罪推定的案例，包括： - HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai and Another (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574 - HKSAR v Ng Po On (2008) 11 HKCFAR 91 - Lee To Nei v HKSAR (終院刑事上訴 2011年第5號，終院刑事上訴 2011年第7號，2012年3月30日) - R v Johnstone [2003] 1 WLR 1736 這些案例確立了在判斷逆轉舉證責任是否合憲時，需考慮與合法社會目標的合理關聯及相稱性原則。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院裁定上訴得直，撤銷兩名上訴人的定罪判決及宣告判刑無效。法院認為，根據本案的特殊情況，無需命令重審，因為上訴人的行為理由明顯，且其主要目的符合第295(7)條提供的免責辯護條件。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了《證券及期貨條例》第295(7)條中逆轉舉證責任的合憲性，明確其施加的是說服責任。同時，法院強調專家證據應限於其專業知識範圍，不應就被告人的主觀思想狀態發表意見。判決對證券市場操縱案件中被告人目的的認定及舉證責任分配具有重要指導意義。 --- ### 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: Fu Kwok Kuen and Lee Shu Yuen v HKSAR - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Bokhary PJ, Chan PJ, Ribeiro PJ, Litton NPJ, Gault NPJ - Date of Judgment: 24 May 2012 ### Factual Background The two appellants were convicted of 20 counts of false trading, contrary to sections 295(1) and 295(6) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571). They engaged in "matched orders" trading of derivative warrants issued by Macquarie Bank on the Hong Kong Stock Exchange between January 2004 and January 2005. The appellants utilized a commission rebate scheme, trading warrants with each other at the same price and selling them at market close to earn rebates. The trial judge found they had an intention or were reckless as to creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading, and an ancillary purpose of creating market activity to facilitate their exit at a favorable price. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against conviction but granted leave to appeal against sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was the applicability of the statutory defence under section 295(7) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, and whether it imposed a persuasive burden or merely an evidential burden 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 the appellants had an ancillary purpose of creating active trading to facilitate their exit. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal held that the Court of Appeal erred in finding the defence under section 295(7) inapplicable. The CFA affirmed that section 295(7) explicitly imposes a persuasive burden, not merely an evidential burden, on the defendant, and that this burden is constitutional. The Court reasoned that the defendants are best placed to prove their purpose, and requiring them to prove their version of events on a balance of probabilities is proportionate to the legitimate societal aim of maintaining an orderly and fair securities market. The trial judge erred by assuming the prosecution bore the persuasive burden under section 295(7) and by making findings of an ancillary purpose without sufficient factual basis. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents concerning reverse onus clauses and the presumption of innocence, including: - HKSAR v Lam Kwong Wai and Another (2006) 9 HKCFAR 574 - HKSAR v Ng Po On (2008) 11 HKCFAR 91 - Lee To Nei v HKSAR (FACC 5/2011, FACC 7/2011, 30 March 2012) - R v Johnstone [2003] 1 WLR 1736 These cases established the analytical framework for assessing the constitutionality of reverse onus clauses, focusing on the rational connection to a legitimate social aim and the principle of proportionality. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal allowed the appeal, quashing the convictions and setting aside the sentences of both appellants. The Court determined that, given the specific circumstances of the case, no retrial was necessary, as the reasons for the appellants' conduct were clear, and their primary purpose fell within the scope of the defence provided by section 295(7). ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the constitutionality of the reverse onus clause in section 295(7) of the Securities and Futures Ordinance, clarifying that it imposes a persuasive burden. It also emphasizes that expert evidence should be confined to the expert's field and not extend to the subjective mental state of the accused. The decision provides significant guidance on the determination of a defendant's purpose and the allocation of the burden of proof in market manipulation 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.