DCCC977/2023

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 譚錦光 - 法院：區域法院 - 法官：鍾偉強 (暫委法官) - 判決日期：2024年6月27日 ### 案情摘要 被告人譚錦光參與一宗典型的「猜猜我是誰」電話騙案。一名男子冒充受害人李女士的兒子，聲稱被警方扣留需支付 60,000 元保釋金。被告人受一名叫 Bobby 的人指使，扮演「跑腿」角色，在長沙灣李鄭屋邨與李女士會面並收取該筆款項。李女士事先已報警，導致被告人在接過款項後隨即被捕。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心 legal issue 在於量刑 (sentencing)。控方申請根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第 27(2) 條申請加刑。辯方則主張被告人僅是前線「跑腿」，對整體計劃知情有限，且因投資失利欠債而起貪念，並強調其品格良好、初犯且適時認罪，請求減刑。 ### 判決理由 法官引用 HKSAR v Hung Wing Chun 確立的 precedent，認定此類電話騙案比街頭騙案嚴重，量刑起點 (starting point) 一般為 4 年監禁。法官拒絕將「跑腿」視為減刑因素，認為收取款項是騙案成功的關鍵。關於加刑，法官參考 HKSAR v Chung Chi King，認為電話騙案猖獗程度已達加刑門檻，決定沿用上訴法院認同的三分之一加幅。 ### 引用案例與條文 1. HKSAR v Hung Wing Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 167：確立電話騙案量刑起點為 4 年及建議三分之一加刑幅度。 2. HKSAR v Chung Chi King (CACC 504/2001)：指引法庭在考慮加刑時應關注罪行普遍程度及對社區損害程度。 3. 《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第 27(2) 條：作為申請加重刑罰的 statutory provision。 ### 裁決與命令 被告人承認串謀詐騙罪成。法官以 48 個月為量刑起點，因適時認罪扣減至 32 個月，再根據控方申請加刑 10 個月，最後考慮其初犯背景酌情減刑 3 個月，最終判處被告人入獄 39 個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案再次強調法院對「電話騙案」採取嚴厲打擊態度，即使被告人僅擔任收取款項的「跑腿」角色，亦不會被視為減輕刑責的因素，且會面臨顯著的加刑風險。 --- ### 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 Tam Kam Kwong - Court: District Court - Judge: Chung Wai Keung (Acting Judge) - Date of Judgment: 27 June 2024 ### Factual Background The defendant, Tam Kam Kwong, was involved in a "Guess Who I Am" phone scam. A fraudster impersonated the victim's son, claiming he was detained by police and needed HK$60,000 for bail. The defendant acted as a "runner" instructed by an individual named Bobby to collect the money from the victim at Lee Cheng Estate. The victim had already alerted the police, leading to the defendant's immediate arrest after receiving the funds. ### Key Legal Issues The primary legal issue was the determination of the appropriate sentence. The prosecution sought an upward departure in sentencing under Section 27(2) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. The defense argued for leniency, citing the defendant's minor role as a runner, his financial distress due to investment losses, his clean record, and his timely guilty plea. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge relied on the precedent in HKSAR v Hung Wing Chun, establishing a starting point of 4 years' imprisonment for such scams due to their severity compared to street fraud. The judge rejected the "runner" argument as a mitigating factor, noting that collection is essential for the scam's success. Following HKSAR v Chung Chi King, the judge granted the application for an aggravated sentence due to the prevalence of phone scams in the community. ### Key Precedents & Statutes 1. HKSAR v Hung Wing Chun [2011] 2 HKLRD 167: Established the 4-year starting point and the one-third aggravation guideline. 2. HKSAR v Chung Chi King (CACC 504/2001): Provided the framework for considering the prevalence of similar crimes when applying for aggravated sentences. 3. Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance s.27(2): The statutory provision used to justify the increased sentence. ### Decision & Orders The defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud. Starting from 48 months, the sentence was reduced to 32 months for the timely plea, then increased by 10 months due to the aggravation application. After a further 3-month reduction for being a first-time offender, the final sentence was 39 months' imprisonment. ### Key Takeaways The judgment reinforces that individuals acting as 'runners' in phone scams are viewed as playing a critical role and will not receive leniency for their subordinate position in the conspiracy. It also highlights the court's commitment to deterrence given the rising trend of such crimes. --- ### 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.