DCCC544/2012

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 陳炳燦（第五被告人）及陳寶雄（第六被告人） - 法院：區域法院 - 法官：林偉權 - 判決日期：2012年11月14日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及一個由九名被告（D1至D9）組成的詐騙集團。該集團由D3及D7成立四間虛假公司（A至D公司），並由D1及D2負責協調。集團成員（包括D4、D5、D6、D9及一名化名羅惠琛的人士）利用這些虛假公司的僱主資料及偽造的住址證明，向中銀、東亞、渣打、恒生及Aeon財務騙取信用卡，以獲取利益。 ### 核心法律爭議 核心 legal issue 在於D5及D6是否參與串謀詐騙。辯方主張：1. 信用卡申請表上的資料未必由被告提供或確認；2. 被告可能僅是個人行為或與少數人串謀，而非參與整個集團的 conspiracy；3. 警方錄取的口供並非 voluntary，應被拒納。 ### 判決理由 法官分析認為，D5及D6多次提供同一虛假住址及虛假僱主資料，足以證明其詐騙意圖。關於 conspiracy 的認定，法官引用 R v Griffiths 案原則，認為被告無需認識所有成員，只要知道存在一個超出其個人行為的非法計劃（scheme）且旨在為集團獲利，即構成單一的 conspiracy。此外，法官裁定警方僅提供口供副本而未提供附件副本，並不違反指引 8(a)(v)，不影響口供的 voluntary 性質。 ### 引用案例與條文 引用 R v Griffiths and others [1966] 1 QB 589 確立串謀罪的認定標準，即參與者只需知道存在一個更廣泛的非法計劃，而無需知曉所有參與者或計劃全貌。 ### 裁決與命令 D3、D5及D6在第二項控罪（串謀詐騙）中均被裁定罪名成立。至於D8，由於其口供被裁定為非自願且表面證供不足，控方同意撤銷其第二項控罪。 ### 判決啟示 本案明確了《查問疑犯及錄取口供的規則及指示》指引 8(a)(v) 的解釋：警方僅須提供警誡口供或會面紀錄本身的副本，而不須提供被問及的文件附件副本。 --- ### 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 Chan Bing Chan (D5) and Chan Po Hung (D6) - Court: District Court - Judge: Lam Wai Kuen - Date of Judgment: 14 November 2012 ### Factual Background A fraud syndicate comprising nine defendants (D1-D9) used four shell companies (Companies A-D) established by D3 and D7 to deceive banks. D1 and D2 acted as coordinators. Members, including D5 and D6, submitted credit card applications to banks (e.g., HSBC, Standard Chartered, Aeon) using fake employer details and false residential addresses to obtain credit cards for profit. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues were whether D5 and D6 participated in a conspiracy to defraud and whether their police statements were voluntary. The defense argued that the defendants did not provide the false information, were not part of a wider conspiracy, and that the statements were obtained under duress or without proper caution. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge found that the repeated use of identical false addresses and employers proved fraudulent intent. Applying the principle from R v Griffiths, the judge ruled that a single conspiracy exists if the participants know there is a scheme extending beyond their own illegal acts, even if they do not know all other members. The judge also ruled that failing to provide copies of documents referred to in an interview (as opposed to the statement itself) does not render a statement involuntary under Guideline 8(a)(v). ### Key Precedents & Statutes R v Griffiths and others [1966] 1 QB 589 was cited to define the scope of a conspiracy, emphasizing that a defendant need not know the full extent of the scheme or all co-conspirators to be liable. ### Decision & Orders D3, D5, and D6 were found guilty of conspiracy to defraud (Count 2). The charge against D8 was dismissed as his statement was ruled involuntary and the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case. ### Key Takeaways The judgment clarifies that under the police guidelines for interviewing suspects, the requirement to provide a copy of the 'statement' refers only to the cautioned statement or record of interview, not the supporting documents or exhibits referred to during the process. --- ### 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.