洗黑錢罪是否持續罪行及重複性原則適用？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v SALIM, MAJED - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：Lunn VP, McWalters JA and D. Pang J - 判決日期：2014年12月12日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於上訴法庭於2014年11月14日撤銷答辯人及其共同上訴人被控處理已知或有合理理由相信為可公訴罪行得益的財產（俗稱「洗黑錢」）的定罪。控罪詳情指明了存入不同銀行帳戶的總金額。上訴法庭拒絕就答辯人被定罪的第4至第7項控罪下令重審，因為其預計獲釋日期為2015年6月26日。律政司隨後申請終審法院上訴許可證明書 (certificate for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal)，質疑洗黑錢罪中「重複性原則 (rule against duplicity)」的適用性，特別是該罪是否屬於「持續罪行 (continuing offence)」。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於洗黑錢罪（根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25條）中「重複性原則」如何適用。具體而言，爭議點包括：洗黑錢罪是否屬於持續罪行，從而豁免於重複性原則；以及重複性原則的例外情況（例如「單一交易 (one transaction)」、「一般虧空 (general deficiency)」和「持續行為 (continuous course of conduct)」）如何適用於指控涉及多重交易的洗黑錢控罪，尤其當這些交易涉及來自不同來源的款項時。答辯人則反對發出證明書，認為條例不應被解釋為將第25(1)條下的罪行視為持續罪行。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，律政司提出的法律問題涉及重大而廣泛的重要性，因此批准發出終審法院上訴許可證明書。法庭此前撤銷定罪，部分原因是原審法官基於「從犯責任 (accessorial liability)」定罪，而此議題在審訊中從未提出，剝奪了答辯人抗辯的機會。法庭亦拒絕了「僅僅借出銀行帳戶供他人使用即構成處理財產」的論點。法庭認為，答辯人所面對的控罪具有重複性，因為該行為橫跨兩個半月，涉及不同受害人於不同場合的多筆收款，不符合「單一交易」、「一般虧空」或「持續行為」的例外情況。每筆交易（即每筆存款）均可識別，且來自不同受害人。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准律政司根據《香港終審法院條例》第32(2)條申請終審法院上訴許可證明書，證明其決定涉及具重大而廣泛重要性的法律論點。法庭同時應答辯人申請，解除其保釋，使其可自由離開香港。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了洗黑錢罪中控罪重複性原則的適用性，特別是當控罪涉及多筆來自不同來源和受害人的交易時。法庭明確指出，此類行為不應被視為單一的持續罪行，並對檢控機關長期以來將多筆存款合併為單一控罪的做法提出了質疑。這對未來洗黑錢案件的檢控策略和法庭審理方式可能產生重大影響，尤其是在處理涉及多個交易和受害人的複雜案件時。 --- ### 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 - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Lunn VP, McWalters JA and D. Pang J - Date of Judgment: 12 December 2014 ### Factual Background This case arose from the Court of Appeal's decision on 14 November 2014 to quash the convictions of the respondent and his co-appellant for dealing with property knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe it was the proceeds of an indictable offence (money laundering). The particulars of offence specified the aggregate of deposits into identified bank accounts. The Court of Appeal declined to order a re-trial for the respondent on Charges 4 to 7, as his anticipated release date was 26 June 2015. The Department of Justice subsequently sought a certificate for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, challenging the application of the rule against duplicity in money laundering offences, specifically whether such an offence could be a continuing offence. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in dispute is how the rule against duplicity operates in the context of the offence of money laundering under section 25 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. Specifically, the issues include whether money laundering can be a continuing offence, thereby exempting it from the rule against duplicity, and how exceptions to the rule (such as "one transaction," "general deficiency," and "continuous course of conduct") apply to money laundering charges alleging multiple dealings, especially when these involve money from known and different sources. The respondent opposed the grant of a certificate, arguing that the Ordinance should not be interpreted to create a continuous offence under section 25(1). ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the points of law raised by the Department of Justice were of great and general importance, thus granting the certificate for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The court had previously quashed the convictions partly because the trial judge convicted on the basis of accessorial liability, an issue not raised during the trial, denying the respondent an opportunity to address it. The court also rejected the submission that "simply lending one’s bank account to another to use is itself a dealing with property for the purposes of section 25(1) of OSCO." The court concluded that the charges faced by the respondent were duplicitous, as the activity spanned two and a half months, involving different receipts on different occasions from different victims, and did not fall within the exceptions of "one transaction," "general deficiency," or "continuous course of conduct." Each dealing (each deposit) was identifiable and made by a different victim. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted the Department of Justice's application for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, certifying that points of law of great and general importance were involved in its decision. The court also discharged the respondent from bail, allowing him to leave Hong Kong. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights the applicability of the rule against duplicity in money laundering offences, particularly when charges involve multiple transactions from different sources and victims. The court explicitly stated that such conduct should not be considered a single continuing offence, challenging the long-standing prosecution practice of aggregating multiple deposits into a single charge. This may have significant implications for future money laundering prosecutions and judicial proceedings, especially in complex cases involving numerous transactions and victims. --- ### 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.