沒收程序是否適用刑事舉證準則？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：黃瀚笙 對 香港特別行政區 - 法院：香港終審法院 (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：2009年7月24日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人擁有的42塊白銀在準備從香港運往大陸時，被海關人員發現藏於貨櫃車司機駕駛間內，且未列艙單。海關檢取該批銀塊，並控告司機企圖輸出未列艙單貨物罪。司機認罪並被判監禁。由於海關關長選擇不歸還銀塊，上訴人（物主）向關長送達申索通知書。關長遂向裁判法院申請沒收該批銀塊。裁判官裁定上訴人並非無辜物主，並下令沒收銀塊。上訴人上訴至高等法院原訟法庭，但被駁回。上訴人獲准向終審法院提出上訴，質疑沒收法律程序的性質、舉證責任和舉證準則。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於根據《進出口條例》第28條對聲稱無辜的物主作出的沒收令，是否受《香港人權法案條例》第十一(一)條涵蓋。上訴人認為，沒收程序具刑事性質，應適用無罪假定和刑事舉證準則（無合理疑點）。答辯方則主張沒收程序屬民事性質，應採用民事舉證準則（相對可能性的衡量）。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，沒收法律程序本質上屬民事性質，而非刑事。因此，《香港人權法案條例》第十一(一)條所保障的無罪假定和刑事舉證準則（無合理疑點）不適用。法院確認，在沒收程序中，舉證責任在於聲稱人（物主）以相對可能性的衡量準則證明其有理據要求法庭歸還物品。然而，若指稱涉及嚴重不當行為（如串同），則須採用「相稱證據方法」，即證據的有力程度須與指稱的嚴重性相稱，以超越該行為本質上的不可能性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例，包括Air Canada v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 150和Koon Wing Yee v Insider Dealing Tribunal (2008) 11 HKCFAR 170，確立沒收程序屬民事性質。Solicitor (24/07) v Law Society of Hong Kong (2008) 11 HKCFAR 117則確立了「相稱證據方法」原則，即在民事案件中，若指稱嚴重，證據的說服力須更高。 ### 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同違例時，雖未明確提及「相稱證據方法」，但其「唯一合理推論」的裁斷已滿足了該準則的要求，因此有充分理由行使酌情權命令沒收銀塊。雙方同意不作任何關於訟費的命令。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了香港沒收法律程序的民事性質，並澄清了在涉及嚴重指稱的民事程序中，舉證準則應採用「相稱證據方法」。這意味著即使是民事案件，若指控行為嚴重，法庭對證據的要求會更高，但仍未達到刑事案件「無合理疑點」的標準。這對涉及財產沒收的行政執法案件具有重要指導意義。 --- ### 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 Sang v HKSAR - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Li Kwok Nang CJ, Bokhary PJ, Chan Siu Kai PJ, Ribeiro PJ, Sir Anthony Mason NPJ - Date of Judgment: 24 July 2009 ### Factual Background The appellant's 42 silver bars, valued at HK$1,644,167, were seized by customs officers while being transported from Hong Kong to mainland China, as they were undeclared cargo. The driver of the container truck was convicted and imprisoned for attempting to export unmanifested cargo. The Commissioner of Customs chose not to return the silver bars, and the appellant (owner) served a notice of claim. The Commissioner then applied to the Magistrates' Court for forfeiture. The Magistrate found the appellant was not an innocent owner and ordered forfeiture. The appellant's appeal to the Court of First Instance was dismissed. The appellant was granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, challenging the nature of forfeiture proceedings, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal question was whether forfeiture proceedings under section 28 of the Import and Export Ordinance, concerning an allegedly innocent owner, fall within the scope of Article 11(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The appellant argued that forfeiture proceedings are criminal in nature, requiring the presumption of innocence and the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt). The respondent contended that they are civil proceedings, requiring the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities). ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal held that forfeiture proceedings are inherently civil, not criminal. Therefore, the presumption of innocence and the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt) under Article 11(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance do not apply. The Court affirmed that in forfeiture proceedings, the burden of proof lies with the claimant (owner) to establish, on a balance of probabilities, grounds for the court to return the goods. However, where serious allegations (such as complicity) are made, the 'proportionality of evidence' approach must be adopted, meaning the cogency of evidence must be proportionate to the seriousness of the allegation to overcome its inherent unlikelihood. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several cases, including Air Canada v United Kingdom (1995) 20 EHRR 150 and Koon Wing Yee v Insider Dealing Tribunal (2008) 11 HKCFAR 170, which established the civil nature of forfeiture proceedings. Solicitor (24/07) v Law Society of Hong Kong (2008) 11 HKCFAR 117 was cited for the 'proportionality of evidence' principle, requiring a higher degree of convincing evidence for serious allegations in civil cases. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal unanimously dismissed the appellant's appeal. The Court found that although the Magistrate did not explicitly mention the 'proportionality of evidence' approach when finding the appellant complicit, her conclusion of 'the only reasonable inference' satisfied the requirements of that standard, thus providing sufficient grounds to exercise discretion to order forfeiture of the silver bars. No order as to costs was made by agreement of the parties. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the civil nature of forfeiture proceedings in Hong Kong and clarifies the application of the 'proportionality of evidence' approach in civil cases involving serious allegations. This means that even in civil matters, if the alleged conduct is severe, the court demands a higher standard of convincing evidence, though not reaching the criminal standard of 'beyond reasonable doubt'. This provides important guidance for administrative enforcement cases involving property forfeiture. --- ### 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.