洗黑錢罪量刑時交叉提存的處理？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 曾耀光 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：彭偉昌法官、潘敏琦法官、彭寶琴法官 - 判決日期：2024年11月5日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人（D2）與另外兩名被告（D1、D3）因俗稱「洗黑錢」罪被控。上訴人被控三項洗黑錢罪，涉及三個銀行戶口（戶口4、5、6），總金額約1,259萬港元。控方指上訴人知道或有合理理由相信款項為犯罪得益。上訴人在警誡下保持緘默，庭審時辯稱在深圳經營火鍋店、手機轉售及士多生意，並替客人兌換賭博資金，款項為生意盈利及私人借貸往來。原審法官拒絕其證供，裁定罪名成立，判處監禁3年9個月。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原審法官在量刑時，是否錯誤地將上訴人三個戶口之間互相轉賬的款項（即「交叉提存」）重複計算，導致量刑基準過高。上訴方認為，只有約800萬港元為來歷不明的款項，其餘約460萬港元為戶口間轉賬，應予扣減。答辯方則認為，交叉提存構成「多層化」(layering)，旨在隱藏資金來源，應加重罪責。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認同「多層化」操作會加重洗黑錢罪責，且次數愈多愈複雜罪責愈大。然而，法庭指出最公道的量刑方法應是：首先剔除交叉提存的金額，根據黑錢實際數目釐定量刑基準，然後再根據多層化的嚴重程度調高刑期。法庭認為原審法官未有充分考慮剔除交叉提存金額，導致量刑基準有誤。儘管上訴人涉及的實際黑錢金額約為770萬港元，但考慮到D3在涉款813萬港元且無多層化操作下僅被判3年，為公平起見，上訴人的刑期不應遠高於此。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗洗黑錢罪的量刑案例，包括： - HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 - 律政司司長 訴 雲國強 [2012] 1 HKLRD 197 - 香港特別行政區 對 許有益 [2010] 5 HKLRD 536 - HKSAR v Chan Kim Chung Nelson [2012] 2 HKLRD 263 此外，上訴方提及 HKSAR v Oei Hengky Wiryo CACC 109/2005 及 HKSAR v Lee Wai Yin CACC 100/2006，以支持剔除交叉提存金額的做法，上訴法庭對此未有異議。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴人的上訴得直。原審判刑被撤銷，改判為一個可令上訴人即時獲釋的刑期。法庭將刑期下調至3年9個月，經酌情扣減6個月後為3年3個月。考慮到上訴人已服刑23個月、健康狀況及保釋後再進牢房的震撼，最終酌情免去餘下約3個月的刑期。 ### 判決啟示 本案明確了洗黑錢罪中「多層化」操作會加重罪責，但量刑時應先剔除戶口間「交叉提存」的金額，再根據實際黑錢數額釐定基準刑期，然後按多層化嚴重程度調整。這為處理涉及多個戶口轉賬的洗黑錢案件提供了更為公道和可預期的量刑指引，避免了重複計算的問題，同時兼顧了罪行的複雜性。 --- ### 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 TSANG YIU KONG - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Pang Wai Cheong JA, Poon Man Ki JA, Pang Po Kam JA - Date of Judgment: 5 November 2024 ### Factual Background The appellant (D2) was charged with three counts of money laundering, commonly known as 'washing black money', involving three bank accounts (Accounts 4, 5, and 6) with a total sum of approximately HK$12.59 million. The prosecution alleged that the appellant knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of crime. The appellant remained silent under caution but testified at trial that he operated a hotpot restaurant, mobile phone resale business, and a sundry store in Shenzhen, and exchanged gambling funds for customers. He claimed the funds were business profits and private loan transactions. The trial judge rejected his testimony, convicted him, and sentenced him to 3 years and 9 months imprisonment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the trial judge erred in sentencing by double-counting funds transferred between the appellant's own accounts (known as 'cross-deposits and withdrawals'), leading to an excessive sentencing benchmark. The appellant argued that only about HK$8 million was of unknown origin, with the remaining HK$4.6 million being inter-account transfers that should have been deducted. The respondent contended that cross-deposits and withdrawals constituted 'layering', intended to conceal the source of funds, and should aggravate culpability. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal agreed that 'layering' operations aggravate money laundering culpability, with greater complexity leading to higher culpability and longer sentences. However, the court stated that the fairest sentencing approach is to first deduct cross-transferred amounts, determine the sentencing benchmark based on the actual amount of black money, and then adjust the sentence upwards according to the severity of the layering. The court found that the trial judge did not sufficiently consider deducting cross-transferred amounts, leading to an incorrect sentencing benchmark. Although the actual amount of black money involved for the appellant was about HK$7.7 million, considering D3 was sentenced to 3 years for HK$8.13 million without layering, the appellant's sentence should not be significantly higher for fairness. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several sentencing precedents for money laundering offences, including: - HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 - Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 197 - HKSAR v Hui Yau Yick [2010] 5 HKLRD 536 - HKSAR v Chan Kim Chung Nelson [2012] 2 HKLRD 263 Additionally, the appellant referred to HKSAR v Oei Hengky Wiryo CACC 109/2005 and HKSAR v Lee Wai Yin CACC 100/2006 to support the practice of deducting cross-transferred amounts, to which the Court of Appeal did not express disagreement. ### Decision & Orders The appellant's appeal was allowed. The original sentence was quashed and substituted with a sentence that allowed for the appellant's immediate release. The sentence was reduced to 3 years and 9 months, further reduced by 6 months for discretion to 3 years and 3 months. Considering the appellant had already served 23 months, his health condition, and the impact of returning to prison after bail, the remaining approximately 3 months of the sentence were ultimately remitted. ### Key Takeaways This case clarifies that while 'layering' in money laundering aggravates culpability, sentencing should first deduct inter-account 'cross-deposits and withdrawals' to establish a benchmark based on the actual amount of black money, then adjust the sentence according to the severity of layering. This provides a fairer and more predictable sentencing guideline for money laundering cases involving multiple account transfers, avoiding double-counting while accounting for the complexity of the crime. --- ### 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.