洗黑錢罪行判刑時更生因素的考慮？減刑

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v LAM KA SIN also known as MAK KA SIN - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：McWalters JJA 及 Zervos JJA - 判決日期：2020年10月14日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人於2016年1月12日被控串謀處理已知道或有合理理由相信為可公訴罪行得益的財產（俗稱「洗黑錢」），涉案金額為110萬港元。她同意借出銀行帳戶予犯罪集團收取受害人的款項，並曾嘗試存入一張110萬港元的支票，但因支票有問題未能成功。其後她退出安排，沒有再參與。上訴人於2018年5月誕下一子，並在兒子出生後積極改過自新，戒除毒癮。原審法官判處她監禁1年10個月。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為原審法官在判刑時，是否充分考慮了上訴人的個人背景、參與程度較低、以及其在犯案後積極改過自新的「特殊情況」，以致未能判處非監禁式刑罰或採用較低的量刑起點。上訴方認為，上訴人已改過自新，且其參與程度低，應獲減刑或判處緩刑。控方則強調洗黑錢罪行的嚴重性，認為即時監禁是必要的，但承認原審法官可能未有充分考慮個人化判刑。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官未有充分考慮案件的具體情況及上訴人的個人背景和求情因素，導致量刑起點過高且不恰當。法庭強調，判刑不僅要考慮阻嚇性，亦應重視更生（rehabilitation）目標，尤其是在有「特殊情況」時。本案中，上訴人退出犯罪安排、年紀輕、易受影響、誕子後積極改過自新及真心悔過等因素，構成應予考慮的「特殊情況」，應給予個人化判刑。法庭將量刑起點定為24個月監禁，認罪後減至16個月，並因已服刑期而即時釋放。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗洗黑錢案件的判例，包括 Secretary For Justice v Siu Yun Yee [2017] 3 HKLRD 678，強調洗黑錢罪行即使是初犯也應判處即時監禁。HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 則指出洗黑錢罪行沒有固定量刑標準，應考慮多種因素。Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 提供了涉案金額與量刑起點的參考。此外，HKSAR v Leung Pui Shan [2008] 4 HKLRD 14 強調判刑需針對個別犯人情況進行調整，而非僅限於罪行類別。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭批准上訴，撤銷原審法官的判刑，改判上訴人監禁16個月。由於上訴人已服滿相等於該刑期的監禁時間，法庭命令她即時獲釋。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了判刑時應平衡阻嚇、懲罰、預防及更生（rehabilitation）等目標，並強調在洗黑錢等嚴重罪行中，即使阻嚇性是首要考慮，也不應忽視更生目標。法庭指出，判刑並非「非黑即白」，應針對個別犯人的特殊情況進行個人化判刑，尤其是在犯人有顯著悔改和更生跡象時。本案為洗黑錢案件的判刑提供了更具彈性的指引，強調了「特殊情況」在量刑中的重要性。 --- ### 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 LAM KA SIN also known as MAK KA SIN - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: McWalters JJA and Zervos JJA - Date of Judgment: 14 October 2020 ### Factual Background The appellant was charged on 12 January 2016 with conspiracy to deal with property knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe represented the proceeds of an indictable offence (commonly known as "money laundering"), involving HK$1.1 million. She agreed to lend her bank account to a criminal syndicate to receive funds from a victim and attempted to deposit a HK$1.1 million cheque, which failed due to an irregularity. She subsequently withdrew from the arrangement and had no further involvement. The appellant gave birth to a son in May 2018 and actively rehabilitated herself, overcoming drug addiction. The original judge sentenced her to 1 year and 10 months' imprisonment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the trial judge sufficiently considered the appellant's personal background, low level of participation, and her active rehabilitation efforts after the offence as "exceptional circumstances," which might have warranted a non-custodial sentence or a lower starting point. The appellant argued for a reduced sentence or suspended sentence due to her rehabilitation and limited involvement. The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of money laundering, arguing for immediate imprisonment, but conceded the trial judge might not have fully adopted an individualized sentencing approach. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge failed to adequately consider the specific circumstances of the offence and the appellant's personal background and mitigation, leading to an inappropriately high starting point. The court emphasized that sentencing should not only consider deterrence but also rehabilitation, especially when "exceptional circumstances" exist. In this case, the appellant's withdrawal from the criminal arrangement, her young age, vulnerability, positive lifestyle change after childbirth, and genuine remorse constituted "exceptional circumstances" warranting an individualized sentence. The court adopted a starting point of 24 months' imprisonment, reduced to 16 months for the guilty plea, and ordered immediate release due to time served. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several money laundering cases, including Secretary For Justice v Siu Yun Yee [2017] 3 HKLRD 678, which highlighted that immediate custodial sentences are generally required for money laundering, even for first offenders. HKSAR v Boma [2012] 2 HKLRD 33 noted the absence of a fixed tariff for money laundering due to varied circumstances. Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 201 provided guidance on starting points based on the amount involved. HKSAR v Leung Pui Shan [2008] 4 HKLRD 14 stressed the need for sentences to be tailored to the individual offender, not just the offence category. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the sentence imposed by the trial judge, and substituted it with a sentence of 16 months' imprisonment. As the appellant had already served the equivalent of this term, the court ordered her immediate release from custody. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms that sentencing objectives, including deterrence, retribution, prevention, and rehabilitation, must be balanced. It highlights that even in serious offences like money laundering, where deterrence is paramount, the goal of rehabilitation should not be overlooked. The court emphasized that sentencing is not a "black-and-white" exercise and requires an individualized approach, especially when an offender demonstrates significant remorse and genuine efforts towards rehabilitation. This judgment provides more flexible guidance for sentencing in money laundering cases, underscoring the importance of "exceptional circumstances" in determining the appropriate sentence. --- ### 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.