DCCC101/2021

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：香港特別行政區 訴 叶輝、黃曉欣、石彥汭、查卓鋐 (前稱查力及查宇) - 法院：區域法院 (DCCC) - 法官：鄧少雄暫委法官 - 判決日期：2023年7月31日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及四名被告人，包括星展銀行(香港)有限公司（星展）的豐盛理財客戶經理（第一被告人）及三名私人貸款業務顧問（第二、三、四被告人）。控方指控第一被告人串謀其他被告人，在無合理權限或合理辯解下，提供或接受利益，以透露或接收星展客戶的機密資料（控罪一至七）。此外，控方亦指控第一被告人取用星展的客戶關係管理（CRM）系統，目的是為其本人或他人不誠實地獲益，即取得星展客戶的機密資料（控罪八至三十七）。 ### 核心法律爭議 核心法律爭議在於：1. 各被告人是否曾達成協議，以非法回佣換取客戶機密個人資料（串謀使代理人接受利益）。2. 第一被告人取用星展CRM系統時，是否具有不誠實意圖（有犯罪或不誠實意圖而取用電腦）。辯方主要抗辯指，第一被告人的行為在星展內部是認可、公開甚至被鼓勵的，因此具有合法權限及合理辯解，並無不誠實之處。控方則主張被告人串謀洩露客戶資料並收取金錢回報。 ### 判決理由 法官裁定控方已在無合理疑點下證明各被告人串謀以非法回佣換取星展客戶的機密個人資料。法官強調，星展的 Code of Conduct 對員工操守有嚴格要求，禁止行賄受賄及隨意洩露客戶資料。被告人作為銀行從業員，不可能對此毫無概念。法官亦引用 Secretary for Justice v Chan Chi Wan Stephen 案，指出即使主事人可能獲得經濟利益，被告人仍可能干犯相關控罪，且損害主事人聲譽即構成損害。對於第二類控罪，法官運用 R v Ghosh 標準，認為第一被告人取用CRM系統時，心懷不軌，意圖以客戶資料換取非法回佣，其行為是不誠實的。 ### 引用案例與條文 - Secretary for Justice v Chan Chi Wan Stephen (2017) 20 HKCFAR 98: 闡釋《防止賄賂條例》第9條控罪元素，特別是「與其主事人的事務或業務有關的作為」及「損害主事人利益」的定義，並釐清串謀罪中「無合法權限或合理辯解」的舉證責任。 - HKSAR v Tsun Shui Lun [1999] 3 HKLRD 215: 指出《刑事罪行條例》第161(1)(c)條的犯罪意圖須在取用電腦時存在。 - Li Man Wai v Secretary for Justice (2003) 6 HKCFAR 466: 確立裁決被告人是否不誠實時應運用 R v Ghosh 標準。 - R v Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053: 定義不誠實的兩部分測試。 - Secretary for Justice v Cheng Ka Yee (2019) 22 HKCFAR 97: 指出《刑事罪行條例》第161(1)(c)條的「取用」要求控方證明被告人未獲授權而使用電腦。 - Sham Wing Kan v Commissioner of Police [2017] 5 HKLRD 589 及 [2020] 2 HKLRD 529: 確立警方搜查電子設備需手令的法律原則，並適用於其他執法機構如廉署。 - R v Yu Yem Kin, HCCC 111/1993 (未經𢑥編): 關於非法取得證據的可呈堂性。 - HKSAR v Muhammad Riaz Khan (2012) 15 HKCFAR 232: 關於侵犯憲法權利下獲得證據的可呈堂性標準。 ### 裁決與命令 法官裁定第一、第二、第三及第四被告人所有控罪罪名成立。具體而言，第一被告人被裁定控罪一至七（串謀使代理人接受利益）及控罪八至三十七（有犯罪或不誠實意圖而取用電腦）罪名成立。第二、第三及第四被告人則被裁定各自面對的串謀控罪罪名成立。判決書中未提及具體刑罰或賠償命令，僅為裁決理由書。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了代理人貪污罪中「損害主事人利益」的廣泛定義，不僅限於經濟損失，聲譽損害亦可構成。同時，強調了銀行員工在處理客戶機密資料時的嚴格保密義務，即使內部存在「Open Sky Policy」或「Cross Selling」等做法，也不能作為收取非法回佣的合法辯解。此外，法庭在處理電子證據時，對 Cellebrite 等取證工具的可靠性給予高度認可，並明確了在侵犯憲法權利下獲得證據的可呈堂性標準，但同時強調了對被告人基本權利的保護，如第二被告人手機資料因未獲告知「保持沉默權」而被剔除，這對未來電子證據的採集和呈堂具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 Yip Fai, Wong Hiu Yan, Shek Yin Yui, Cha Cheuk Hung (formerly known as Cha Lik and Cha Yu) - Court: District Court (DCCC) - Judge: Deputy District Judge Tang Siu Hung - Date of Judgment: 31 July 2023 ### Factual Background This case involves four defendants: a Relationship Manager (D1) and three Direct Sales Representatives (D2, D3, D4) from DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited. The prosecution alleged that D1 conspired with the other defendants to offer or accept advantages without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by disclosing or receiving confidential customer data (Charges 1-7). D1 was also accused of accessing DBS's Customer Relationship Management (CRM) system with criminal or dishonest intent to gain confidential customer information for himself or others (Charges 8-37). ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues were: 1. Whether the defendants conspired to accept illegal commissions in exchange for confidential customer data (conspiracy for agent to accept advantages). 2. Whether D1 had dishonest intent when accessing DBS's CRM system (access computer with criminal or dishonest intent). The defence argued D1's actions were approved, open, and even encouraged by DBS, thus constituting lawful authority and reasonable excuse, without dishonesty. The prosecution contended the defendants conspired to disclose customer data for monetary gain. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge found the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the defendants conspired to exchange confidential customer data for illegal commissions. The judge emphasized DBS's Code of Conduct imposed strict ethical standards, prohibiting bribery and unauthorized disclosure of customer data. The defendants, as banking professionals, could not claim ignorance. Citing Secretary for Justice v Chan Chi Wan Stephen, the judge noted that harm to the principal's reputation constitutes detriment, even if economic benefits accrue. For the second category of charges, applying the R v Ghosh test, the judge concluded D1 acted dishonestly when accessing the CRM system, intending to exchange customer data for illegal commissions. ### Key Precedents & Statutes - Secretary for Justice v Chan Chi Wan Stephen (2017) 20 HKCFAR 98: Clarified elements of s.9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, particularly "in relation to his principal's affairs or business" and "detriment to the principal," and the burden of proof for "lawful authority or reasonable excuse" in conspiracy cases. - HKSAR v Tsun Shui Lun [1999] 3 HKLRD 215: Stated that mens rea under s.161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance must exist at the time of computer access. - Li Man Wai v Secretary for Justice (2003) 6 HKCFAR 466: Established the R v Ghosh test for determining dishonesty. - R v Ghosh [1982] 1 QB 1053: Defined the two-limb test for dishonesty. - Secretary for Justice v Cheng Ka Yee (2019) 22 HKCFAR 97: Held that "access" under s.161(1)(c) of the Crimes Ordinance requires unauthorized use of a computer. - Sham Wing Kan v Commissioner of Police [2017] 5 HKLRD 589 and [2020] 2 HKLRD 529: Established legal principles for police search of electronic devices requiring warrants, applicable to other law enforcement agencies like the ICAC. - R v Yu Yem Kin, HCCC 111/1993 (unreported): Regarding admissibility of unlawfully obtained evidence. - HKSAR v Muhammad Riaz Khan (2012) 15 HKCFAR 232: Set out the standard for admissibility of evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. ### Decision & Orders The judge found all four defendants guilty on all charges. Specifically, D1 was convicted of Charges 1-7 (conspiracy for agent to accept advantages) and Charges 8-37 (access computer with criminal or dishonest intent). D2, D3, and D4 were convicted of their respective conspiracy charges. The judgment did not specify particular sentences or compensation orders, serving solely as the reasons for verdict. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms the broad interpretation of "detriment to the principal" in agent bribery offenses, extending beyond mere financial loss to include reputational harm. It underscores the stringent confidentiality obligations of bank employees regarding customer data; internal practices like "Open Sky Policy" or "Cross Selling" do not justify accepting illegal commissions. Furthermore, the court highly endorsed the reliability of forensic tools like Cellebrite for electronic evidence, while also clarifying the admissibility standards for evidence obtained in violation of constitutional rights. Notably, D2's mobile data was excluded due to a failure to inform her of the right to silence, providing crucial guidance for future electronic evidence collection and admissibility. --- ### 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.