罪行普遍性與加重刑罰？維持原判

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Xu Mai-qing (徐麥清) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Stuart-Moore VP, Yeung JA and Beeson J - 判決日期：2006年9月27日 ### 案情摘要 申請人徐麥清是一名來自內地的訪客，於2005年6月3日與另外兩人以「街頭騙案 (street deception)」手法接觸受害人，聲稱受害人兒子將有意外，並誘使受害人尋求「風水大師」進行「法事 (spiritual blessing)」，要求受害人提供貴重物品如金飾和現金以驅邪。受害人及時報警，申請人未能成功騙取財物即被捕。申請人其後在區域法院承認一項串謀詐騙罪，被判處三年監禁。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於原審法官根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》(Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, OSCO) 第27(11)條加重刑罰是否恰當。申請人一方認為，案發時相關罪行已不再「普遍 (prevalent)」，因此不應加刑。控方則認為，儘管案件數量可能有所下降，但該罪行在2005年仍然普遍，且其偵測困難，故加刑合理。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析了街頭騙案的統計數據，特別是涉及「法事」手法的案件。儘管街頭騙案的總數自2002年高峰期有所下降，但法庭認為，根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第27(11)條，控方只需證明罪行普遍，而非數量增加。法庭指出，2005年街頭騙案的數量仍然非常可觀，且涉及「法事」手法的案件數量並未減少，甚至高於2003年。因此，原審法官認定該罪行普遍且難以偵測，並據此加重刑罰是正確的。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了HKSAR v Huang Yu-huan [2002] 2 HKC 682，強調街頭騙案是嚴重罪行，必須予以阻嚇，並指出其對受害人可能造成的嚴重後果。申請人一方曾依賴HKSAR v Wong Fung Ming CACC 515/2001、HKSAR v Tang Kwok Wing CACC 253/2001及HKSAR v Au Yeung Pui Wah CACC 149/2002等案例，但法庭認為這些案例涉及「倫敦金 (Loco London Silver)」詐騙，其統計數據與本案的街頭騙案情況不同，因此不適用。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人就刑期上訴的許可申請。法庭裁定原審法官判處的三年監禁既非明顯過重，亦無原則性錯誤。申請人提出的唯一上訴理據未能成立。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第27(11)條下加重刑罰的適用原則，即只需證明罪行普遍，而非數量必須持續增加。它強調了街頭騙案的嚴重性及其對社會的危害，即使警方已進行宣傳，此類罪行仍需嚴厲阻嚇。判決也區分了不同類型詐騙案的「普遍性」判斷標準。 --- ### 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 Xu Mai-qing (徐麥清) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Stuart-Moore VP, Yeung JA and Beeson J - Date of Judgment: 27 September 2006 ### Factual Background The applicant, Xu Mai-qing, a visitor from the Mainland, along with two others, approached the victim on 3 June 2005 using a 'street deception' modus operandi. They claimed the victim's son would have an accident and persuaded her to seek 'spiritual blessing' from a 'Feng Shui' master, who required valuables like gold ornaments and cash to perform a ritual to ward off evil spirits. The victim, however, reported the matter to the police, and the applicant was arrested before she could obtain the valuables. The applicant subsequently pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud in the District Court and was sentenced to three years' imprisonment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the trial judge was correct to enhance the sentence under section 27(11) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (OSCO). The applicant argued that the offence was no longer 'prevalent' at the time of sentencing, thus the enhancement was unwarranted. The prosecution contended that despite a possible decrease in numbers, the offence remained prevalent in 2005 and was difficult to detect, justifying the enhanced sentence. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed statistics on street deception cases, particularly those involving the 'spiritual treatment' modus operandi. While the total number of street deception cases had decreased from its peak in 2002, the court held that under OSCO section 27(11), the prosecution only needed to prove the prevalence of the offence, not an increase in its numbers. The court noted that the number of street deception cases in 2005 remained substantial, and cases involving 'spiritual treatment' had not decreased, even exceeding 2003 figures. Therefore, the trial judge was justified in finding the offence prevalent and difficult to detect, and in enhancing the sentence. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited HKSAR v Huang Yu-huan [2002] 2 HKC 682, emphasizing that street deception is a grave offence requiring deterrence due to its potentially devastating impact on victims. The applicant relied on HKSAR v Wong Fung Ming CACC 515/2001, HKSAR v Tang Kwok Wing CACC 253/2001, and HKSAR v Au Yeung Pui Wah CACC 149/2002, but the court distinguished these cases, noting they concerned 'Loco London Silver' fraud with different statistical trends, making them inapplicable to the present street deception context. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The court found that the three-year imprisonment imposed by the trial judge was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle. The sole ground of appeal advanced by the applicant failed. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the principles for sentence enhancement under OSCO section 27(11), clarifying that prevalence, not necessarily an increase in numbers, is the key criterion. It underscores the serious nature of street deception and the need for strong deterrence, even with police publicity efforts. The ruling also highlights the importance of distinguishing statistical trends for different types of fraud when assessing prevalence. --- ### 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.