沒收程序是否適用刑事舉證標準？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Wong Hon Sun (黃瀚笙) v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - 法院：香港終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：李國能首席法官、包致金常任法官、陳兆愷常任法官、李義常任法官、梅師賢非常任法官 - 判決日期：2009年7月24日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及42塊銀磚，價值港幣1,644,167元。海關人員於2006年10月7日在準備離港前往內地的貨櫃車司機駕駛室內發現這些未列艙單的銀磚並將其檢獲。貨車司機承認企圖出口未列艙單貨物罪並被判處一年監禁。銀磚的擁有人（上訴人）於2006年10月5日購入這些銀磚，並向海關關長提出申索。關長拒絕歸還銀磚，並向裁判法院申請沒收。裁判官裁定上訴人並非「無辜擁有人」(innocent owner)，下令沒收銀磚。上訴人向高等法院上訴被駁回，後獲上訴委員會批准向終審法院提出上訴，質疑沒收程序中證明嚴重指控的法律準則。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於《進出口條例》(Import and Export Ordinance, Cap. 60) 第28條下的沒收程序是否屬於《香港人權法案條例》(Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, Cap. 383) 第11(1)條所指的刑事檢控。上訴人認為，沒收程序應適用無罪推定原則及刑事舉證標準（無合理疑點）。此外，爭議點還包括在沒收程序中，證明擁有人參與或促成違法行為的舉證責任和舉證標準應如何確定。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，沒收程序本質上是民事性質的「對物訴訟」(process in rem)，而非刑事檢控，因此不適用《香港人權法案條例》第11(1)條的無罪推定原則和刑事舉證標準。法院確認，在沒收程序中，海關關長須按民事舉證標準（相對可能性的衡量）證明被檢獲物品應予沒收。若擁有人欲避免沒收，則須承擔舉證責任，證明其無辜，以說服法院行使酌情權將物品歸還。對於涉及嚴重指控（如擁有人串謀違法）的情況，雖仍採民事舉證標準，但所需證據的強度須與指控的嚴重性相稱，即「相稱證據原則」(commensurate evidence approach)。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例來確立沒收程序的民事性質及舉證標準： - Koon Wing Yee v. Insider Dealing Tribunal (2008) 11 HKCFAR 170：確認沒收程序為民事性質的「對物訴訟」。 - Air Canada v. United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 150：歐洲人權法院裁定沒收程序屬民事性質。 - Allgemeine Gold-und Silberscheideanstalt (AGOSI) v. United Kingdom (1987) 9 EHRR 1：歐洲人權法院裁定沒收程序不涉及刑事指控的裁定。 - Solicitor (24/07) v. Law Society of Hong Kong (2008) 11 HKCFAR 117：確立了「相稱證據原則」，即嚴重指控需更強的證據來證明。 - R v. CEC Finance Ltd [1993] 2 HKCLR 134：討論了沒收酌情權的行使，但本案對其部分觀點提出異議。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院一致駁回上訴人的上訴。法院裁定，裁判官在認定上訴人串謀違法時，雖未明確提及「相稱證據原則」，但其「唯一合理推論」的標準已足以滿足該原則的要求。因此，裁判官行使酌情權下令沒收銀磚的決定是合理的。雙方同意，若上訴被駁回，則不就訟費作出命令。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港沒收程序的民事性質，並明確了在涉及嚴重指控時，即使適用民事舉證標準，也必須遵循「相稱證據原則」。這意味著，對於像串謀違法這類嚴重指控，法院需要更具說服力的證據才能在相對可能性的衡量下確立事實。判決還強調了《基本法》和《人權法案》對財產權的保護，要求法院在行使沒收酌情權時必須公平公正，不能偏袒國家。 --- ### 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: Wong Hon Sun (黃瀚笙) v Hong Kong Special Administrative Region - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and Sir Anthony Mason NPJ - Date of Judgment: 24 July 2009 ### Factual Background This case concerns 42 silver slabs valued at HK$1,644,167. Customs officers seized these unmanifested silver slabs on 7 October 2006, hidden in the driver's compartment of a container lorry about to leave Hong Kong for the Mainland. The lorry driver pleaded guilty to attempting to export unmanifested cargo and was sentenced to one year's imprisonment. The owner of the silver slabs (the appellant), who had purchased them on 5 October 2006, claimed them from the Commissioner of Customs and Excise. The Commissioner refused to restore the silver and applied to the Magistrate's Court for forfeiture. The Magistrate found the appellant was not an "innocent owner" and ordered forfeiture. The appellant's appeal to the High Court was dismissed, and he was granted leave by the Appeal Committee to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, challenging the legal standard for proving serious allegations in forfeiture proceedings. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal question in this case was whether forfeiture proceedings under section 28 of the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap. 60) fall within Article 11(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383), thereby requiring the presumption of innocence and the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt). The appellant argued that this should be the case. Additionally, the issues included determining the burden and standard of proof for establishing an owner's complicity in a contravention during forfeiture proceedings. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal ruled that forfeiture proceedings are civil in nature, constituting a "process in rem" against the property, rather than a criminal charge. Therefore, the presumption of innocence and the criminal standard of proof under Article 11(1) of the Bill of Rights do not apply. The Court affirmed that in forfeiture proceedings, the Commissioner must prove, on a balance of probabilities (the civil standard), that the seized article is liable to forfeiture. If the owner wishes to avoid forfeiture, they bear the burden of proving their innocence to persuade the court to exercise its discretion to return the goods. For serious allegations, such as the owner's complicity in the contravention, while the civil standard of proof still applies, the strength of the evidence required must be commensurate with the seriousness of the allegation, known as the "commensurate evidence approach." ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents to establish the civil nature of forfeiture proceedings and the standard of proof: - Koon Wing Yee v. Insider Dealing Tribunal (2008) 11 HKCFAR 170: Confirmed forfeiture proceedings as civil "process in rem." - Air Canada v. United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 150: The European Court of Human Rights held forfeiture proceedings to be civil. - Allgemeine Gold-und Silberscheideanstalt (AGOSI) v. United Kingdom (1987) 9 EHRR 1: The European Court of Human Rights found forfeiture proceedings do not involve the determination of a criminal charge. - Solicitor (24/07) v. Law Society of Hong Kong (2008) 11 HKCFAR 117: Established the "commensurate evidence approach," requiring stronger evidence for serious allegations. - R v. CEC Finance Ltd [1993] 2 HKCLR 134: Discussed the exercise of forfeiture discretion, though some views expressed in it were disagreed with. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal unanimously dismissed the appellant's appeal. The Court found that although the Magistrate did not explicitly refer to the "commensurate evidence approach" when finding the appellant complicit, her conclusion that complicity was the "only reasonable inference" was sufficient to meet that standard. Therefore, the Magistrate's exercise of discretion to order forfeiture of the silver slabs was justified. By consent, no order as to costs was made. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the civil nature of forfeiture proceedings in Hong Kong and clarifies that even when the civil standard of proof applies to serious allegations, the "commensurate evidence approach" must be followed. This means that for grave accusations like complicity in illegal activities, more compelling evidence is required to establish the facts on a balance of probabilities. The judgment also highlighted the protection of property rights under the Basic Law and Bill of Rights, emphasizing that courts must exercise forfeiture discretion fairly and impartially, without bias towards the state. --- ### 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.