串謀詐騙罪的定義是否足夠明確？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：毛玉萍 對 香港特別行政區 - 法院：香港特別行政區終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：終審法院首席法官李國能、終審法院常任法官包致金、終審法院常任法官陳兆愷、終審法院常任法官李義、終審法院非常任法官梅師賢爵士 - 判決日期：2007年7月25日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人毛玉萍被控串謀詐騙罪。控方指控上訴人透過兩項協議，利用他人交易戶口進行上海地產控股有限公司（「上海地產」）股份交易，製造股份交投活躍的假象。第二項協議旨在維持上海地產股份的市場價格在特定水平（0.58元），以避免因股價下跌而需向中國銀行（香港）有限公司（「中銀」）支付貸款差價。上訴人指示其私人助理雷女士進行這些交易，資金由上訴人或其關聯人士支付。交易戶口持有人對此並不知情或未同意。當股價跌破0.58元時，中銀曾要求支付差價，但最終未獲支付。原審法官裁定上訴人串謀詐騙罪成，上訴法庭維持部分定罪，但就本案的憲法問題頒令證明。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於串謀詐騙罪的表述方式是否足夠明確，以符合《基本法》第39條及《香港人權法案條例》第11(1)條所指的「依法規定」或「依法」要求。上訴人辯稱該罪行定義不明確，特別是「不誠實」元素，且其廣度過於寬泛，可能涵蓋非刑事性質的行為。答辯方則認為該罪行已獲法院和學者充分闡釋，且其適用範圍是明確的。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，串謀詐騙罪的表述方式足夠明確，符合「法律確定性」(legal certainty)原則。法院指出，該罪行的要素是協議使用「不誠實手段」(dishonest means)，旨在導致他人蒙受經濟損失或使其經濟權益承受風險，或明知可能導致此等後果。判斷「不誠實」採用兩階段驗證標準（Ghosh案），即客觀上按明理且誠實的人的一般標準是否不誠實，以及主觀上被告人是否認知其行為按該等標準屬不誠實。法院強調，法律的模糊性在普通法體系中不可避免，且該罪行在香港的運用並未產生問題或困難。法院亦拒絕將「相稱性」(proportionality)驗證標準應用於法律確定性問題。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗英國上議院和樞密院判例，包括 Welham v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1961] AC 103、R v. Scott [1975] AC 819、Wai Yu-tsang v. The Queen [1992] 1 AC 269，確立了串謀詐騙罪不限於欺騙手段，且「意圖詐騙」不局限於經濟損失。R v. Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053 確立了判斷「不誠實」的兩階段驗證標準。Shum Kwok Sher v. HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 381 則確認了Ghosh驗證標準在香港的適用性及法律確定性原則。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院一致裁定駁回上訴。法院回答獲核證的問題為「是」，即串謀詐騙罪的表述方式足夠明確，符合《基本法》及《香港人權法案條例》的要求。上訴人針對串謀詐騙罪的定罪維持不變。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港普通法下串謀詐騙罪的廣泛適用性及其符合憲法要求的確定性。法院明確了「不誠實」的兩階段驗證標準，並強調了普通法體系中法律模糊性的必然性。判決還指出，在已有特定法定罪行規管的行為中，控方通常應優先援引法定罪行，除非有充分理由訴諸普通法下的串謀詐騙罪，例如本案中上訴人罪責程度較高。 --- ### 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: Mao Yuk Ping v HKSAR - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Li Kwok-nang, Permanent Judge Bokhary PJ, Permanent Judge Chan PJ, Permanent Judge Ribeiro PJ, Non-Permanent Judge Sir Anthony Mason - Date of Judgment: 25 July 2007 ### Factual Background The appellant, Mao Yuk Ping, was charged with conspiracy to defraud. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, through two agreements, used third-party trading accounts to deal in shares of Shanghai Land Holdings Limited ("Shanghai Land"), creating a false appearance of active trading. The second agreement aimed to maintain Shanghai Land's share price at a specific level (HK$0.58) to avoid triggering a payment obligation to Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited ("BOCHK") under a loan agreement. The appellant instructed her assistant, Ms. Lui, to conduct these transactions, with funds provided by the appellant or her associates. The account holders were unaware of or did not consent to these transactions. When the share price fell below HK$0.58, BOCHK requested payment of the difference, but no payment was made. The trial judge convicted the appellant of conspiracy to defraud, and the Court of Appeal upheld part of the conviction, certifying a constitutional question for this appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the formulation of the offence of conspiracy to defraud was sufficiently clear to satisfy the requirements of "prescribed by law" or "in accordance with law" under Article 39 of the Basic Law and Article 11(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The appellant argued that the offence was ill-defined, particularly the element of "dishonesty," and that its breadth was excessive, potentially criminalizing non-criminal conduct. The respondent contended that the offence was adequately explained by courts and scholars, and its scope was clear. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal held that the formulation of the offence of conspiracy to defraud was sufficiently clear to meet the principle of "legal certainty." The Court stated that the elements of the offence involve an agreement to use "dishonest means" with the aim of causing economic loss to another or putting their economic interests at risk, or knowing that such actions would or might cause such consequences. The two-stage Ghosh test is applied to determine dishonesty: objectively, whether the conduct was dishonest by the ordinary standards of reasonable and honest people, and subjectively, whether the defendant knew that by those standards, their conduct was dishonest. The Court emphasized that some degree of vagueness is inherent in common law and that the application of this offence in Hong Kong has not caused problems. The Court also declined to apply a "proportionality" test to the question of legal certainty. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several UK House of Lords and Privy Council cases, including Welham v. Director of Public Prosecutions [1961] AC 103, R v. Scott [1975] AC 819, and Wai Yu-tsang v. The Queen [1992] 1 AC 269, which established that conspiracy to defraud is not limited to deceptive means and that "intent to defraud" is not confined to economic loss. R v. Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053 established the two-stage test for dishonesty. Shum Kwok Sher v. HKSAR (2002) 5 HKCFAR 381 affirmed the applicability of the Ghosh test and the principle of legal certainty in Hong Kong. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The certified question was answered in the affirmative, meaning the formulation of the offence of conspiracy to defraud is sufficiently clear to comply with the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The appellant's conviction for conspiracy to defraud was upheld. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the broad applicability and constitutional certainty of the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud in Hong Kong. The Court clarified the two-stage test for dishonesty and highlighted the inherent nature of legal ambiguity within a common law system. The ruling also noted that where specific statutory offences exist, prosecutors should generally prefer them, unless there are compelling reasons, such as the high culpability of the appellant in this case, to resort to the common law offence of conspiracy to defraud. --- ### 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.