借出銀行戶口處理犯罪得益的定罪與判刑？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 鄭家偉 - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：潘敏琦法官 - 判決日期：2013年8月21日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人鄭家偉於2011年3月30日開立一個銀行戶口，並於同年5月6日結束該戶口，提取餘款港幣14,200.10元。該戶口在短時間內共有229次存款記錄及60次提款記錄，總存提款額均為港幣294,800.10元。上訴人被捕後承認將戶口存摺、提款咭及密碼交予他人使用，聲稱是因應招聘廣告聯絡陳小姐後按指示開戶，並不知情戶口涉及洗黑錢活動，自稱是求職騙案的受害者。他因「處理已知道或合理相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產」罪（handling property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence）被定罪及判監2年。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議點在於上訴人是否知情或有合理理由相信其銀行戶口所處理的款項是來自可公訴罪行的得益。上訴人辯稱他並無參與洗黑錢亦不知情，只是求職騙案的受害者，並認為原審裁判官拒絕接納其會面記錄中的辯解部分為證據是錯誤的。答辯方則認為裁判官已仔細分析上訴人的辯解，並根據「黃楚和」案的原則，認為在正常情況下，將銀行戶口交予他人使用，除非有相反證據，否則可推論戶口持有人有合理理由相信款項來自可公訴罪行。 ### 判決理由 法官維持原審裁判官的裁斷，認為上訴人並非少不更事，卻甘願在未查明原因、未查問公司狀況、承諾未兌現的情況下，隨便開設戶口並將存摺、提款咭等交予他人，且聲稱全無聯絡方法，其辯白於理不合。法官指出，該戶口在短時間內有大量現金存提記錄，模式不符正常業務或個人運作，一名合理的人會相信有關存款來自可公訴罪行的得益，而上訴人亦知悉此情況的存在。因此，定罪上訴理據不足，維持原判。然而，對於判刑，法官認為原審量刑過重，考慮到上訴人僅借出戶口，犯案手法不複雜，不涉跨境因素，且參考了香港特別行政區訴許惠敏案的量刑原則，認為2年監禁的量刑基準過重。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了香港特別行政區訴許惠敏 (HKSAR v Hui Wai Man, CACC 299/2012) 一案，作為判刑上訴的參考案例。該案例指出，在涉及借出戶口予他人使用以處理犯罪得益的案件中，即使涉及金額較大，量刑起點亦應低於兩年監禁，這影響了本案法官對上訴人刑期的考量。此外，答辯方亦引用了黃楚和一案的原則，以支持在正常情況下，將銀行戶口交予他人使用可推論戶口持有人有合理理由相信款項來自可公訴罪行。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院原訟法庭駁回上訴人就定罪的上訴，維持原判。然而，法庭裁定上訴人就判刑的上訴得直，擱置原審裁判官判處的2年監禁刑期，改判監禁15個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在處理「洗黑錢」案件中，即使被告聲稱不知情，但若其行為（如隨意將銀行戶口交予他人使用且不查明原因）不合常理，法庭仍可推斷其有合理理由相信款項來自犯罪得益。同時，本案也為借出銀行戶口作洗黑錢用途的案件提供了量刑指引，強調此類案件的刑責應與其參與程度和複雜性相稱，並非一概而論，即使涉及較大金額，量刑起點亦可能低於兩年監禁。 --- ### 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 Cheng Ka Wai - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon Madam Justice Poon - Date of Judgment: 21 August 2013 ### Factual Background The appellant, Cheng Ka Wai, opened a bank account on 30 March 2011 and closed it on 6 May 2011, withdrawing the remaining balance of HK$14,200.10. Within this short period, the account recorded 229 deposits and 60 withdrawals, with total transactions amounting to HK$294,800.10. After his arrest, the appellant admitted to handing over his passbook, ATM card, and PIN to others, claiming he opened the account as instructed by a Ms. Chan after responding to a job advertisement, and was unaware of any money laundering activities, considering himself a victim of an employment scam. He was convicted of handling property known or reasonably believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence and sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the appellant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe that the funds handled through his bank account were proceeds of an indictable offence. The appellant argued he was not involved in money laundering and was unaware, being a victim of an employment scam. He contended that the trial magistrate erred in rejecting his explanations in the interview record. The respondent argued that the magistrate had thoroughly analyzed the appellant's defence and, based on the principle in HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo, it is an irresistible inference that a person allowing another to use their bank account for deposits and withdrawals has reasonable grounds to believe the funds are proceeds of an indictable offence, unless there is evidence to the contrary. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge upheld the trial magistrate's finding that the appellant's explanations were unreasonable. The appellant, being an adult, willingly opened an account and handed over his passbook and ATM card without verifying the reasons, Ms. Chan's company status, or whether promises were fulfilled, and then claimed to have no contact information for Ms. Chan. The judge noted the account's pattern of numerous cash deposits and withdrawals within a short period, which was not typical for normal business or personal operations. A reasonable person would believe the deposits were proceeds of an indictable offence, and the appellant was aware of these circumstances. Therefore, the appeal against conviction was dismissed. However, regarding sentencing, the judge found the original sentence excessive, considering the appellant merely lent his account, the method was unsophisticated, and there were no cross-border elements. Referring to the sentencing principles in HKSAR v Hui Wai Man, the judge concluded that a starting point of 2 years' imprisonment was too high. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case of HKSAR v Hui Wai Man (CACC 299/2012) was cited as a precedent for the sentencing appeal. This case indicated that for offences involving lending bank accounts for handling criminal proceeds, even with substantial amounts, the starting point for sentencing should be less than two years' imprisonment, influencing the judge's decision on the appellant's sentence. Additionally, the respondent cited the principle from HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo, supporting the inference that a person allowing another to use their bank account for transactions has reasonable grounds to believe the funds are proceeds of an indictable offence. ### Decision & Orders The Court of First Instance dismissed the appellant's appeal against conviction, upholding the original verdict. However, the court allowed the appellant's appeal against sentence, setting aside the original 2-year imprisonment and substituting it with a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that in money laundering cases, even if a defendant claims ignorance, their unreasonable actions (e.g., carelessly handing over a bank account to others without due diligence) can lead to an inference of reasonable belief that funds are criminal proceeds. It also provides sentencing guidance for cases involving lending bank accounts for money laundering, emphasizing that culpability should align with the degree of involvement and complexity, and that a starting point of two years' imprisonment may be excessive even for significant sums. --- ### 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.