隱瞞行為是否構成串謀詐騙的虛假陳述？撤銷定罪

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 陳樹雄 及 施緣鈕 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：高等法院首席法官梁紹中、高等法院上訴法庭法官張澤祐、高等法院上訴法庭法官楊振權 - 判決日期：2002年11月28日 ### 案情摘要 第一申請人陳樹雄（A1）和第二申請人施緣鈕（A2）是一對夫婦，被控多項串謀詐騙罪。控罪指他們與多名流動小販牌照持有人（特赦證人）串謀，利用市政署（包括市政局及臨時市政局）鼓勵小販交回牌照以換取固定攤位的政策。A1/A2 游說這些小販將換取來的攤位高價轉讓或出租給其他小販，而非由登記租客自行經營。雖然登記租客與市政署簽訂了「官方租約」，但他們實際上並無經營攤位，而是由 A1/A2 安排的「登記助手」經營。A1/A2 從中獲取巨額利潤。控方認為此行為違反了租約條款，欺騙市政署以謀取私利，構成串謀詐騙。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於「登記租客」向市政署隱瞞其無意經營攤位並將其轉讓/出租的行為，是否構成虛假陳述（false representation），進而構成串謀詐騙（conspiracy to defraud）。 控方主張，考慮到整體交易背景和特殊情況，登記租客的隱瞞行為本身已構成虛假陳述。辯方則認為，除非隱瞞一方有責任披露相關事實，否則隱瞞不構成虛假陳述，而本案中登記租客並無此披露責任。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析認為，要構成詐騙，必須有虛假陳述。隱瞞事實要構成虛假陳述，前提是隱瞞一方有責任向被隱瞞一方披露有關事實。本案中，沒有證據顯示「登記租客」在簽約時有責任向市政署披露他們會將攤位轉讓/出租。因此，他們向市政署隱瞞這些事實不構成虛假陳述。法庭亦指出，市政署對攤位轉讓/出租的行為採取「隻眼開，隻眼閉」的容忍態度，且從未因此取消租約，甚至要求部分涉案租客簽署減租文件，這與市政署職員聲稱的「絕不容許」不符。法庭根據 Ghosh 案的測試，無法毫無疑點地確定登記租客的行為是不誠實的，也無法確定他們犯有詐騙行為。雖然 A1/A2 的行為不道德且應受譴責，但不構成刑事罪責。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了英國上訴法庭的 Johnson v Nobbs (unreported, 9 March 1983) 案，支持隱瞞構成虛假陳述的前提是存在披露責任的論點。此外，亦引用了 Director of Public Prosecution v Ray [1974] A.C. 370 案，討論了持續性陳述（continuing representation）的概念，但最終控方並未依賴此理據支持控罪。本案亦提及 Ghosh 案所定下的測試，用於判斷行為是否不誠實。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭批准了第一申請人陳樹雄和第二申請人施緣鈕的上訴許可申請，並將其視為正式上訴。法庭裁定上訴得直，撤銷了兩名申請人的定罪，並擱置了原判刑罰。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了串謀詐騙罪中「虛假陳述」的構成要件，特別是隱瞞行為何時能被視為虛假陳述。法庭明確指出，除非存在披露責任，否則單純的隱瞞不構成虛假陳述。此外，判決也反映了刑事法律與民事違約或不道德行為之間的界限，即使行為不道德或導致公帑損失，若不符合刑事罪行的構成要件，亦不應以刑法懲處。這對未來涉及類似「隱瞞」行為的詐騙案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 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: HKSAR v Chan Shu Hung and Sze Yuen Nau - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Chief Judge of the High Court Ma, Hon Cheung JA, Hon Yeung JA - Date of Judgment: 28 November 2002 ### Factual Background The 1st Applicant, Chan Shu Hung (A1), and the 2nd Applicant, Sze Yuen Nau (A2), a married couple, were charged with multiple counts of conspiracy to defraud. The prosecution alleged that they conspired with several hawker licence holders (immunized witnesses) to exploit a policy by the Urban Services Department (including the Urban Council and Provisional Urban Council) that encouraged hawkers to surrender their licences in exchange for fixed stalls. A1/A2 persuaded these hawkers to transfer or sublet the obtained stalls at high prices to other hawkers, instead of operating them themselves. Although the registered tenants signed "official tenancy agreements" with the Urban Services Department, they did not actually operate the stalls; instead, "registered assistants" arranged by A1/A2 did. A1/A2 profited significantly from this arrangement. The prosecution contended that this conduct violated tenancy terms, defrauded the Urban Services Department for personal gain, and thus constituted conspiracy to defraud. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the registered tenants' concealment from the Urban Services Department of their intention not to operate the stalls and to transfer/sublet them constituted a false representation, thereby forming the basis for conspiracy to defraud. The prosecution argued that, considering the overall context and special circumstances, the act of concealment itself amounted to a false representation. The defence contended that concealment does not constitute a false representation unless there is a duty to disclose the relevant facts, and no such duty existed for the registered tenants in this case. ### Ratio Decidendi The court analyzed that for fraud to exist, there must be a false representation. For concealment of facts to constitute a false representation, the concealing party must have a duty to disclose those facts to the deceived party. In this case, there was no evidence that the registered tenants had a duty to disclose to the Urban Services Department at the time of signing the agreement that they would transfer/sublet the stalls. Therefore, their concealment of these facts did not constitute a false representation. The court also noted that the Urban Services Department adopted a tolerant, 'turning a blind eye' attitude towards the transfer/subletting of stalls, never cancelling tenancies for this reason, and even asking some involved tenants to sign rent reduction documents, which contradicted the department's officers' claims of 'absolute prohibition'. Applying the Ghosh test, the court could not be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the registered tenants' actions were dishonest or that they committed fraud. Although A1/A2's conduct was immoral and reprehensible, it did not amount to criminal culpability. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Johnson v Nobbs (unreported, 9 March 1983) from the English Court of Appeal, supporting the argument that concealment constitutes false representation only if there is a duty to disclose. Director of Public Prosecution v Ray [1974] A.C. 370 was also discussed regarding the concept of continuing representation, though the prosecution ultimately did not rely on this argument. The Ghosh test for dishonesty was also mentioned. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal granted the applications for leave to appeal by the 1st Applicant, Chan Shu Hung, and the 2nd Applicant, Sze Yuen Nau, treating them as substantive appeals. The court allowed the appeals, quashed the convictions of both applicants, and set aside their sentences. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the elements of "false representation" in conspiracy to defraud, particularly when an act of concealment can be deemed a false representation. The court emphasized that mere concealment does not constitute a false representation unless a duty to disclose exists. Furthermore, the decision highlights the distinction between criminal law and civil breach of contract or immoral conduct; even if actions are immoral or lead to public financial loss, they do not warrant criminal punishment if they do not meet the elements of a criminal offence. This has significant implications for future fraud cases involving similar acts of concealment. --- ### 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.