洗黑錢罪的判刑是否過重？維持原判

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v ZHAN JIAN FU (詹劍富) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Hon Stuart-Moore VP, Yuen JA and Suffiad J - 判決日期：2008年8月12日 ### 案情摘要 申請人是一名內地居民，於2005年11月在香港開設了兩個銀行帳戶。2006年2月至4月期間，約200萬港元從台灣的一個帳戶匯入這些帳戶。申請人多次提取款項，並於2006年4月18日離開香港。他於2007年2月10日再次進入香港時被捕。這些款項實際上是一名台灣婦女因詐騙案被騙的錢。申請人承認兩項處理已知或相信代表可公訴罪行得益的財產（俗稱「洗黑錢」）控罪。他聲稱不知道詐騙情節，只相信資金來源可疑，並指是受一名台灣人Chan指示開戶及提款。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議是原審法庭對申請人兩項洗黑錢控罪判處的總刑期是否過重。申請人最初質疑其認罪的有效性，聲稱他不知道款項是犯罪得益，但後來撤回了對定罪的上訴，僅針對刑期提出上訴。控方則提交了多宗同類案件的判刑案例，以支持原審判決的恰當性。 ### 判決理由 法庭審視了原審法官的判刑理由，包括法官對申請人聲稱不知情的質疑，但接受他只是「洗黑錢」鏈條中的一環。法官考慮到涉案金額巨大，且涉及台灣、內地和香港三地，認為輕判不足以阻嚇同類罪行。原審法官以3年監禁為量刑起點，並給予三分之一的認罪折扣。上訴法庭在考慮了控方提交的多宗同類案件判例後，認為原審法官的判刑恰當，並無過重。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗處理已知或相信代表可公訴罪行得益的財產罪行的判刑案例，包括： - HKSAR v Javid Kamran CACC 400/2004 - HKSAR v Mak Shing CACC322/2001 - HKSAR v Abayomi Bamidele Fayomi CACC197/2005 - HKSAR v Chen Szu Ming CACC 270/2005 - HKSAR v Yam Kong Lai CACC 458/2006 這些案例為法庭評估本案判刑的恰當性提供了參考。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了申請人就其兩項處理已知或相信代表可公訴罪行得益的財產控罪提出的上訴許可申請。原審法庭判處的總刑期為32個月監禁，維持不變。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了處理已知或相信代表可公訴罪行得益的財產罪行（洗黑錢）的判刑原則，即使被告只是犯罪鏈條中的一環，若涉案金額巨大且涉及跨境操作，法庭仍會判處阻嚇性刑罰。被告在審訊中對案情陳述的反覆，可能會影響法庭對其悔意和角色輕重的評估。 --- ### 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 ZHAN JIAN FU (詹劍富) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Stuart-Moore VP, Yuen JA and Suffiad J - Date of Judgment: 12 August 2008 ### Factual Background The Applicant, a Mainlander, opened two bank accounts in Hong Kong in November 2005. Between February and April 2006, approximately HK$2 million was remitted from a Taiwanese account into these accounts. The Applicant withdrew the money periodically and left Hong Kong on 18 April 2006. He was arrested upon re-entering Hong Kong on 10 February 2007. The money was in fact proceeds from a scam that defrauded a Taiwanese woman. The Applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (money laundering). He claimed he was unaware of the deception, only believing the money came from suspicious sources, and acted under instructions from a Taiwanese man named Chan to open accounts and withdraw funds. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issue was whether the total sentence imposed by the trial court for the Applicant's two money laundering charges was manifestly excessive. The Applicant initially questioned the validity of his guilty plea, claiming he did not know the money was criminal proceeds, but later withdrew his appeal against conviction, proceeding only with an appeal against sentence. The prosecution presented several sentencing precedents for similar offences to support the appropriateness of the original sentence. ### Ratio Decidendi The court reviewed the trial judge's reasons for sentence, including the judge's skepticism regarding the Applicant's claim of ignorance, but accepting that he was a "cog in the machine." The judge considered the substantial sum involved and the cross-border nature of the operation (Taiwan, Mainland, and Hong Kong), concluding that a light sentence would not deter such activities. The trial judge adopted a starting point of 3 years' imprisonment, applying a one-third discount for the guilty plea. The Court of Appeal, after considering the precedents provided by the prosecution, found the original sentence appropriate and not excessive. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited several sentencing precedents for dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence, including: - HKSAR v Javid Kamran CACC 400/2004 - HKSAR v Mak Shing CACC322/2001 - HKSAR v Abayomi Bamidele Fayomi CACC197/2005 - HKSAR v Chen Szu Ming CACC 270/2005 - HKSAR v Yam Kong Lai CACC 458/2006 These cases provided a reference for the court to assess the appropriateness of the sentence in the present case. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence for his two charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. The total sentence of 32 months' imprisonment imposed by the trial court was upheld. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms sentencing principles for money laundering offences. Even if a defendant is a mere cog in the criminal chain, a substantial sum involved and cross-border operations warrant a deterrent sentence. Inconsistent statements by the defendant during proceedings regarding their knowledge of the crime may impact the court's assessment of remorse and the extent of their involvement. --- ### 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.