電話騙案及洗黑錢罪的量刑原則？加刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v CHAN HO KIT（陳皓傑） - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：潘兆初首席法官、彭偉昌上訴法官、潘敏琦上訴法官 - 判決日期：2024年4月12日 ### 案情摘要 答辯人陳皓傑承認一項串謀詐騙罪（控罪2）及一項洗黑錢罪（控罪3）。兩項控罪均發生於2022年11月9日。兩名女受害人分別接到冒充其兒子的電話，聲稱兒子因打架被捕，需要金錢。受害人林女士被要求將港幣30,500元交給「李先生」，而受害人黃女士則被要求將港幣65,600元交給自稱其兒子朋友的「李先生」。答辯人被捕時，警方從他身上檢獲林女士交出的港幣30,500元。答辯人聲稱他只是受指示收取款項，每宗交易可獲約港幣2,000元報酬。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人律政司爭議原審法官對每項控罪或整體判處的刑罰原則上錯誤及明顯不足。對於串謀詐騙罪，申請人認為上訴法庭在相關案例中為電話騙案訂立的量刑指引（以四年為一般起點）具約束力。對於洗黑錢罪，申請人指出即使被告沒有直接參與詐騙行為，若對相關犯罪行為有認識，適當的起點應為三年。答辯人則辯稱，本案情況與過往案例中涉及綁架或嚴重威脅的情況不同，不應僵化地應用四年起點，且其對洗黑錢罪的相關犯罪行為僅有有限認識。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官在串謀詐騙罪（控罪2）上採用24個月的起點是原則上錯誤及明顯不足。法庭強調，電話騙案的嚴重性不在於詐騙手法，而在於騙徒利用受害人對親人的關愛和保護欲，使其陷入恐慌，從而騙取金錢，這等同於情感勒索。因此，詐騙金額並非最重要的考慮因素。對於洗黑錢罪（控罪3），法庭認為答辯人對相關犯罪行為的認識程度遠超其聲稱的有限認識，其在詐騙計劃中扮演關鍵角色，故原審法官採用12個月的起點亦屬原則上錯誤及明顯不足。法庭裁定控罪2的適當起點為四年，控罪3的適當起點為三年。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了多宗上訴法庭的判例，包括HKSAR v Hung Yung Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 167、HKSAR v Yang Chia Cheng & Another [2011] 3 HKLRD 602及HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai CACC 100/2014，這些案例確立了電話騙案的量刑指引，一般以四年為起點。對於洗黑錢罪，則引用了HKSAR v Wu Jianbing [2012] 1 HKLRD 777、HKSAR v Cen Huakuo [2015] 2 HKLRD 945及HKSAR v Lin Zong Yue [2015] 3 HKLRD 182，這些案例討論了被告對相關犯罪行為認識程度對量刑的影響。法庭強調，電話騙案的量刑指引不應與盜竊或以欺騙手段取得金錢利益的案件混淆。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准律政司的刑期覆核申請，撤銷原審法官對控罪2及控罪3的判刑。控罪2的刑期由21個月監禁改判為40個月監禁，控罪3的刑期由12個月監禁改判為30個月監禁。法庭命令控罪3的其中8個月刑期與控罪2分期執行，總刑期為48個月監禁。由於答辯人即將獲釋，法庭額外給予每項控罪兩個月的減刑。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了上訴法庭對電話騙案的嚴厲量刑政策，強調此類罪行的嚴重性不應因詐騙手法或金額而減輕。法庭明確指出，電話騙案的量刑指引（四年起點）適用於利用受害人對親人關愛的「情感勒索」式詐騙，不應與其他盜竊或欺詐罪行混淆。此外，本案亦闡明了洗黑錢罪中被告對相關犯罪行為的認識程度是重要的加重情節，即使是「跑腿」角色，若對詐騙計劃有相當了解，亦會被視為扮演關鍵角色，面臨更嚴厲的刑罰。 --- ### 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: SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v CHAN HO KIT - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Poon CJHC, Pang JA and M Poon JA - Date of Judgment: 12 April 2024 ### Factual Background The respondent, Chan Ho Kit, pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) and one count of money laundering (Charge 3). Both offences occurred on 9 November 2022. Two female victims received phone calls from a swindler impersonating their sons, falsely claiming they were arrested for fighting and needed money. Madam Lam was asked to deliver HK$30,500 to a 'Mr Lee', and Madam Wong was asked to deliver HK$65,600 to a 'Mr Lee' who claimed to be her son's friend. The respondent was arrested, and the HK$30,500 collected from Madam Lam was recovered from him. The respondent claimed he was merely instructed to collect items and money, receiving about HK$2,000 per transaction. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant, the Secretary for Justice, contended that the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge for each charge or as a whole were wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate. For conspiracy to defraud, the applicant argued that the sentencing guidelines laid down by the Court of Appeal in relevant authorities for telephone deception cases, with a general starting point of four years, were binding. For money laundering, the applicant stressed that even without direct involvement in the fraudulent act, if the defendant had knowledge of the predicate offence, the appropriate starting point should be three years. The respondent argued that the circumstances of this case were less serious than previous cases involving kidnapping or severe threats, and a four-year starting point should not be rigidly applied. He also claimed limited knowledge of the predicate offence for the money laundering charge. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the sentencing judge's adoption of a 24-month starting point for conspiracy to defraud (Charge 2) was wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate. The court emphasized that the seriousness of telephone deceptions lies not merely in the modus operandi, but in swindlers exploiting victims' vulnerability and love for their children, causing panic to defraud them, which amounts to emotional blackmail. Therefore, the sum involved is not the most important consideration. For money laundering (Charge 3), the court determined that the respondent's knowledge of the predicate offence was far beyond what he claimed, and he played a pivotal role in the fraud scheme. Thus, the 12-month starting point was also wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate. The court ruled that the appropriate starting point for Charge 2 was four years and for Charge 3 was three years. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case primarily cited several Court of Appeal precedents, including HKSAR v Hung Yung Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 167, HKSAR v Yang Chia Cheng & Another [2011] 3 HKLRD 602, and HKSAR v Leung Yiu Fai CACC 100/2014, which established sentencing guidelines for telephone deception cases, generally adopting a four-year starting point. For money laundering, HKSAR v Wu Jianbing [2012] 1 HKLRD 777, HKSAR v Cen Huakuo [2015] 2 HKLRD 945, and HKSAR v Lin Zong Yue [2015] 3 HKLRD 182 were cited, discussing the impact of a defendant's knowledge of the predicate offence on sentencing. The court stressed that sentencing guidelines for telephone deceptions should not be confused with cases of theft or obtaining pecuniary advantage by deception. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the Secretary for Justice's application for review and set aside the sentences imposed by the sentencing judge for Charges 2 and 3. The sentence for Charge 2 was substituted from 21 months' imprisonment to 40 months' imprisonment, and for Charge 3, from 12 months' imprisonment to 30 months' imprisonment. The court ordered 8 months of the sentence for Charge 3 to run consecutively with Charge 2, resulting in a total term of 48 months' imprisonment. A further reduction of 2 months for each charge was granted due to the respondent's imminent release under the original sentence. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the Court of Appeal's stringent sentencing policy for telephone deception cases, emphasizing that the seriousness of such crimes should not be mitigated by the specific modus operandi or the amount defrauded. The court explicitly stated that the sentencing guidelines for telephone deceptions (a four-year starting point) apply to 'emotional blackmail' type frauds that exploit victims' concern for relatives, and should not be confused with other theft or fraud offences. Furthermore, the case clarified that a defendant's knowledge of the predicate offence in money laundering is a significant aggravating factor; even a 'legman' role, if involving substantial understanding of the fraud scheme, will be considered pivotal and incur a more severe sentence. --- ### 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.