販毒者意圖使用的金錢是否可被沒收？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Herry Jane Yusuph - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：楊振權副庭長、麥禮士副庭長、薛偉成上訴法官 - 判決日期：2021年2月25日 ### 案情摘要 申請人因販運危險藥物被定罪，並被命令沒收其所持有的金錢。申請人向終審法院申請證明書，要求證明本案涉及一個具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律問題，即販毒者所持有的金錢，若意圖用於抵港時的盤問或在港逗留期間的開銷，是否構成《危險藥物條例》（香港法例第134章）第56(1)(a)條所指「已用於或與某罪行有關連」的金錢。申請人認為「已用於」意味著過去的行為，因此除非金錢已被實際使用，否則不應被沒收。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，販毒者所持有的金錢，若意圖用於其販毒活動（例如抵港時的盤問或在港逗留期間的開銷），是否符合《危險藥物條例》第56(1)(a)條中「已用於或與某罪行有關連」的定義，從而可以被沒收。申請人主張該條文僅適用於金錢已被實際使用的情況，而非僅有使用意圖的情況。 ### 判決理由 法庭認為，對《危險藥物條例》第56(1)(a)條中「已用於」一詞的解釋應採取常識性（common sense）和目的性（purposive approach）的方法。法庭採納了澳洲案例中對「用於或與某罪行有關連」的廣泛解釋，即「使用」應理解為「為特定目的而僱用或利用」。法庭指出，任何販毒者攜帶金錢以支持其入境或在港逗留以完成販毒目的，即已構成對金錢的使用，無論該金錢是否實際被出示或花費。因此，申請人所持有的金錢已與販毒活動有關連。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了澳洲維多利亞州最高法院的 Chalmers v The Queen (2011) 215 A Crim R 275 案，該案解釋了「用於或與某罪行有關連」的含義，並確立了「使用」應作廣泛解釋的原則。此外，亦引用了 Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Little [2006] QDC 129 案，該案在類似情況下裁定販毒者攜帶的金錢應被沒收。香港案例 HKSAR v Ngoma Juma Shabani [2015] 5 HKLRD 57 也被引用，以支持國際販毒者需要資金以完成其販毒目的的觀點。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭拒絕了申請人根據《香港終審法院條例》（香港法例第484章）第32(2)條申請證明書的請求。法庭裁定，由於申請人提出的法律問題並非合理可爭辯，因此不涉及具有重大而廣泛重要性的法律問題。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調了在解釋沒收條文時應採納常識性及目的性原則，特別是在處理國際販毒案件中販毒者所攜帶金錢的沒收問題。法庭明確指出，金錢只要意圖用於支持販毒活動，即使尚未實際花費或出示，也可能被視為「已用於或與某罪行有關連」，從而可被沒收。這對打擊販毒活動具有重要意義。 --- ### 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 Herry Jane Yusuph - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Hon Yeung VP, Macrae VP and Zervos JA - Date of Judgment: 25 February 2021 ### Factual Background The applicant, convicted of drug trafficking, sought a Certificate from the Court of Final Appeal. The application concerned whether money held by a drug trafficker, intended for use during questioning upon arrival in Hong Kong or for self-maintenance while in Hong Kong, constitutes money "used in the commission of or in connection with an offence" under section 56(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Cap 134). The applicant argued that "has been used" implies past activity, and thus, money not yet actually expended should not be forfeited. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether money carried by a drug trafficker, intended to facilitate their drug trafficking activities (e.g., for questioning upon arrival or living expenses in Hong Kong), falls within the definition of money "used in the commission of or in connection with an offence" under section 56(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Cap 134, and is therefore liable for forfeiture. The applicant contended that the provision only applies where money has been actually used, not merely intended for use. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court held that a common sense and purposive approach should be applied to the interpretation of "has been used" in section 56(1)(a) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance. It adopted the broad interpretation of "used in connection with the commission of the offence" from Australian precedents, where "used" means "employed, or made use of, for a particular end or purpose." The Court found that any drug trafficker carrying money to support their entry or stay in Hong Kong for the purpose of drug trafficking has used that money, regardless of whether it was actually produced or spent. Therefore, the applicant's money was connected to the drug trafficking activity. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Chalmers v The Queen (2011) 215 A Crim R 275 from the Supreme Court of Victoria, which provided a broad interpretation of "used in connection with the commission of the offence." Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Little [2006] QDC 129 was also cited, where money carried by a drug smuggler was forfeited under similar circumstances. HKSAR v Ngoma Juma Shabani [2015] 5 HKLRD 57 was referenced to support the view that international drug traffickers require funds to achieve their purpose. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the applicant's request for a Certificate under section 32(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. The Court determined that the point of law raised by the applicant was not reasonably arguable, and therefore, no question of law of great and general importance was involved. ### Key Takeaways This judgment emphasizes a common sense and purposive approach to interpreting forfeiture provisions, particularly concerning money carried by international drug traffickers. The Court clarified that money intended to support drug trafficking activities, even if not yet physically spent or displayed, can be considered "used in the commission of or in connection with an offence" and thus subject to forfeiture. This has significant implications for combating drug trafficking. --- ### 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.