處理犯罪得益罪是否須證明資金實際來源？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v OEI HENGKY WIRYO - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：Stuart-Moore 副庭長、Stock 上訴法庭法官、McMahon 法官 - 判決日期：2006年1月24日 ### 案情摘要 申請人OEI HENGKY WIRYO是一名印尼公民，與在香港的共謀者Kam Susanto（「Kam」）合謀經營非法收受賭注。警方於2001年9月1日搜查Kam的住所，發現大量與收受賭注相關的文件和物品。兩天後，警方搜查Kam的辦公室，發現更多文件，包括申請人已預先簽署的匯豐銀行支票簿，以及與申請人銀行帳戶相關的文件。調查顯示，申請人與Kam的銀行帳戶之間有大量資金往來，且申請人的帳戶與收受賭注文件上列出的個人有交易。申請人被控串謀收受賭注罪及兩項處理已知或相信代表可公訴罪行得益的財產罪。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人就其定罪和判刑申請上訴許可。就串謀收受賭注罪，主要爭議點包括：法官是否錯誤接納從Kam處檢獲的傳聞證據（共謀者規則）；法官對「Yenny note」的評估是否錯誤；以及法官是否未充分考慮申請人可能在印尼合法經營收受賭注業務的可能性。就處理犯罪得益罪，爭議點在於控方是否必須證明涉案資金實際上代表可公訴罪行的得益。此外，申請人亦爭議判刑過重，並與Kam的判刑存在差異。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，原審法官並未將從Kam處檢獲的文件用作傳聞證據，而是將其視為收受賭注活動的輔助證據，以證明文件性質及Kam與收受賭注活動的關聯。法官對「Yenny note」的認定是基於證人PW1的證供，該證供經澄清後顯示該文件與其他收受賭注文件一同被發現，此認定並無不妥。關於國際業務的可能性，法官的裁決是基於申請人在香港與Kam共同行動的證據，包括其銀行交易和預簽支票簿，而非僅依賴文件證據。對於處理犯罪得益罪，上訴法庭遵循香港的既定法律原則，即控方無需證明涉案資金實際上代表可公訴罪行的得益，只需證明被告知道或有合理理由相信其代表犯罪得益。判刑方面，法庭認為本案涉及非常龐大的收受賭注活動，申請人在資金運作中扮演核心角色，因此判刑並非明顯過重，與Kam的判刑差異亦不構成原則性錯誤。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了HKSAR v. Or Suen Hong [2001] 2 HKLRD 669，該案確立了文件若非用於證明其內容的真實性，則不受傳聞證據規則限制的原則。此外，本案亦引用了HKSAR v. Wong Ping Shui [2001] 1 HKLRD 346和HKSAR v. Li Ching [1997] 4 HKC 108，兩案均確立了根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(1)條，控方無需證明涉案資金實際上代表可公訴罪行的得益，只需證明被告知道或有合理理由相信其代表犯罪得益。R. v. Montila & Others [2004] 1 WLR 3141（英國上議院案例）雖被提及，但香港法庭未予採納其對《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(1)條的解釋。在判刑方面，法庭參考了R. v. Yip Kam Fai [1993] 2 HKC 196，該案為大規模收受賭注活動的判刑提供了指引。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人就定罪和判刑提出的上訴許可申請。申請人維持被判串謀收受賭注罪及兩項處理犯罪得益罪成立，總刑期為五年零六個月監禁。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在香港處理犯罪得益罪中，控方無需證明資金實際來源於可公訴罪行，只需證明被告有相關認知或合理理由相信。此外，判決強調了在評估證據時，文件可以作為證明活動性質的輔助證據，而不受傳聞證據規則的限制。對於大規模非法收受賭注活動，法庭會判處嚴厲刑罰，且被告在犯罪活動中的角色重要性會影響其判刑，即使與共犯判刑存在差異，若無原則性錯誤亦不會被推翻。 --- ### 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 OEI HENGKY WIRYO - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Stuart-Moore VP, Stock JA, McMahon J - Date of Judgment: 24 January 2006 ### Factual Background The applicant, OEI HENGKY WIRYO, an Indonesian citizen, conspired with Kam Susanto ("Kam") in Hong Kong to operate an illegal bookmaking business. On 1 September 2001, police raided Kam's flat, finding numerous documents and items related to bookmaking. Two days later, a search of Kam's office revealed more documents, including a pre-signed HSBC cheque book belonging to the applicant and other documents related to his bank accounts. Investigations showed substantial financial transactions between the applicant's and Kam's bank accounts, and the applicant's accounts had dealings with individuals listed in the bookmaking documents. The applicant was charged with conspiracy to commit bookmaking and two counts of dealing with property known or believed to represent the proceeds of an indictable offence. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal against his convictions and sentences. For the bookmaking conspiracy charge, key issues included: whether the judge erred in admitting hearsay documents seized from Kam (the co-conspirators' rule); whether the judge's assessment of the "Yenny note" was flawed; and whether the judge failed to consider the possibility of the applicant legitimately conducting bookmaking from Indonesia. For the money laundering charges, the issue was whether the prosecution had to prove the funds actually represented proceeds of an indictable offence. Additionally, the applicant argued the sentences were manifestly excessive and showed an unwarranted disparity with Kam's sentence. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge did not use the documents seized from Kam as hearsay evidence, but rather as circumstantial evidence to establish the nature of the documents and Kam's connection to bookmaking activities. The judge's finding regarding the "Yenny note" was based on PW1's testimony, which, after clarification, indicated it was found with other bookmaking documents, and this finding was upheld. On the international ground, the judge's decision was based on evidence of the applicant's joint actions with Kam in Hong Kong, including bank transactions and the pre-signed cheque book, not solely on the documents. For the money laundering charges, the Court followed established Hong Kong law that the prosecution need not prove the funds actually represented proceeds of an indictable offence, only that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe they did. Regarding sentencing, the Court found the bookmaking operation to be very substantial, with the applicant playing a central role in funding, thus the sentences were not manifestly excessive, and any disparity with Kam's sentence did not constitute an error in principle. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited HKSAR v. Or Suen Hong [2001] 2 HKLRD 669, which established that documents used to prove the nature of an activity, rather than the truth of their contents, are not subject to the hearsay rule. HKSAR v. Wong Ping Shui [2001] 1 HKLRD 346 and HKSAR v. Li Ching [1997] 4 HKC 108 were also cited, affirming that under section 25(1) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, the prosecution need not prove the funds actually represent proceeds of an indictable offence, only that the defendant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe so. R. v. Montila & Others [2004] 1 WLR 3141 (House of Lords) was mentioned but not followed in its interpretation of section 25(1). For sentencing, R. v. Yip Kam Fai [1993] 2 HKC 196 provided guidance for large-scale bookmaking operations. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's applications for leave to appeal against both convictions and sentences. The applicant's convictions for conspiracy to commit bookmaking and two counts of dealing with proceeds of crime, with a total sentence of five years and six months' imprisonment, were upheld. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that in Hong Kong, for money laundering offences, the prosecution does not need to prove the actual origin of funds from an indictable offence, but rather the defendant's knowledge or reasonable belief. It also highlights that documents can be admitted as circumstantial evidence to show the nature of an activity, bypassing hearsay rules. For large-scale illegal bookmaking, severe sentences are imposed, and the defendant's central role in the criminal enterprise will influence sentencing, with sentence disparities among co-conspirators not necessarily constituting an error in principle if justified. --- ### 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.