洗錢罪控罪重複性及協助教唆的適用性？撤銷定罪

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v SALIM, MAJED (D2) and DAHDAL, HAFEZ (D3) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：Lunn 副庭長, McWalters 上訴法庭法官及 D. Pang 法官 - 判決日期：2014年11月14日 ### 案情摘要 兩名申請人（第一申請人SALIM, MAJED及第二申請人DAHDAL, HAFEZ）被控多項處理已知或有合理理由相信為可公訴罪行得益的財產罪（俗稱洗錢罪），違反《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》（Organized And Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455）第25(1)及(3)條。控方指控兩名申請人受僱於他人，在香港開設銀行帳戶，並將帳戶操作權交予第三方，以處理國際電郵詐騙所得款項。兩名申請人否認控罪，聲稱自己是受害者，並打算在香港設立公司進行合法貿易。原審法官裁定兩名申請人罪名成立，部分基於他們親自提款，部分基於他們協助及教唆他人處理款項。兩名申請人均就定罪及判刑提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為：一、原審法官在未通知雙方的情況下，以協助及教唆（accessorial liability）為基礎定罪是否恰當。二、控罪是否因涵蓋多個獨立交易而構成重複（duplicitous），特別是《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(1)條下的洗錢罪是否為持續罪行（continuing offence）。三、單純將銀行帳戶借予他人使用，是否構成處理財產的行為（actus reus）。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，原審法官在未通知雙方的情況下，以協助及教唆作為定罪基礎，對申請人造成實質偏見，違反了被告人應被告知所面對控罪的原則。法庭強調，單純將銀行帳戶借予他人使用本身並不構成《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(1)條下的處理財產行為。此外，法庭認為本案控罪因涵蓋不同受害人於不同時間進行的多筆獨立存款交易，構成重複控罪，不符合「單一交易」（one transaction）、「一般虧空」（general deficiency）或「持續行為」（continuous act）的例外情況。因此，控罪存在缺陷。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來闡述重複控罪（duplicitous charge）的原則及協助及教唆（accessorial liability）的適用性： - HKSAR v Lau Sui Hing & Anor CACC 111/2008：澄清了單純借出帳戶不構成處理財產。 - HKSAR v Tam Chi Choi [2009] 5 HKLRD 212：確立了法官不得在未通知下以不同基礎定罪的原則。 - DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584：確立了「單一交易」例外情況，即多個行為若在時間、地點或目的上緊密聯繫，可視為單一罪行。 - R v Middleton [2008] EWCA Crim 233：討論了持續活動或一般虧空情況下的控罪不重複性。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准兩名申請人的上訴許可申請，並將上訴許可聆訊視為上訴聆訊。法庭裁定兩名申請人的定罪不能成立，因此撤銷（quash）了他們的定罪。法庭未作出其他命令，並拒絕了控方對第一申請人重審（retrial）的請求，理由是控罪重複且存在法律問題。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了刑事訴訟中被告人應被明確告知所面對控罪基礎的重要性，並澄清了《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》下洗錢罪的「處理財產」行為不包括單純借出銀行帳戶。判決還詳細審視了重複控罪的原則及其例外情況，強調了控罪必須清晰且不應涵蓋多個獨立罪行，除非符合「單一交易」等特定條件。這對未來洗錢案件的控罪起草具有重要指導意義。 --- ### 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: HKSAR v SALIM, MAJED (D2) and DAHDAL, HAFEZ (D3) - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Lunn VP, McWalters JA and D. Pang J - Date of Judgment: 14 November 2014 ### Factual Background The two applicants (1st applicant SALIM, MAJED and 2nd applicant DAHDAL, HAFEZ) were charged with multiple counts of dealing with property known or reasonably believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence, commonly known as money laundering, contrary to section 25(1) and (3) of the Organized And Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455. The prosecution alleged that the applicants were recruited to open bank accounts in Hong Kong and hand over control to third parties to process funds from international email fraud. The applicants denied the charges, claiming they were victims of deception and intended to set up legitimate businesses in Hong Kong. The trial judge convicted them, partly based on their personal withdrawals and partly on their aiding and abetting others. Both applicants appealed against their convictions and sentences. ### Key Legal Issues The key legal issues in this case were: firstly, whether the trial judge erred by convicting the applicants on the basis of accessorial liability without prior notification to the parties; secondly, whether the charges were duplicitous for covering multiple distinct transactions, and specifically, whether the money laundering offence under section 25(1) of OSCO is a continuing offence; and thirdly, whether merely lending one's bank account to others constitutes "dealing with property" (actus reus). ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's reliance on accessorial liability without notifying the parties caused substantial prejudice to the applicants, violating the principle that a defendant must be informed of the case they have to meet. The Court emphasized that merely lending a bank account for use by others does not, by itself, constitute "dealing with property" under section 25(1) of OSCO. Furthermore, the Court found the charges duplicitous because they covered multiple distinct deposit transactions from different victims over time, and did not fall within the "one transaction," "general deficiency," or "continuous act" exceptions. Thus, the charges were defective. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to clarify the principles of duplicitous charges and the applicability of accessorial liability: - HKSAR v Lau Sui Hing & Anor CACC 111/2008: Clarified that merely lending an account does not constitute dealing with property. - HKSAR v Tam Chi Choi [2009] 5 HKLRD 212: Established the principle that a judge cannot convict on a different basis without notifying the parties. - DPP v Merriman [1973] AC 584: Established the "one transaction" exception, where multiple acts closely linked by time, place, or purpose can be considered a single offence. - R v Middleton [2008] EWCA Crim 233: Discussed the non-duplicitous nature of charges involving continuous activity or general deficiency. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted the applications for leave to appeal and treated the hearing of the applications as the hearing of the appeals. The Court ruled that the convictions of both applicants could not stand and were therefore quashed. No other orders were made, and the prosecution's request for a retrial for the 1st applicant was refused due to the duplicitous nature of the charges and the legal issues involved. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the critical importance of clearly informing defendants of the basis of charges in criminal proceedings and clarifies that merely lending a bank account does not constitute "dealing with property" under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. It also provides a detailed examination of the principles of duplicitous charges and their exceptions, emphasizing that charges must be clear and should not encompass multiple distinct offences unless specific conditions like the "one transaction" rule are met. This has significant implications for the drafting of charges in future money laundering 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.