洗錢罪的犯罪得益是否僅限於淨利潤？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v LIN KEI TAT（練 棋 達） - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：楊振權副庭長、潘兆初法官、彭偉昌法官 - 判決日期：2015年3月10日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人練棋達因兩項洗錢罪名被區域法院法官定罪，判處監禁3年6個月。他被指控在2004年至2010年間清洗約3,970萬港元的非法收益。原審法官根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第8、11及13條，裁定上訴人從洗錢罪行中獲益，並評估其犯罪得益為約3,970萬港元。由於上訴人當時可變現資產僅約1,030萬港元，原審法官頒布沒收令，要求上訴人支付該筆款項，否則須額外服刑5年。上訴人就沒收令提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》(Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance)下「犯罪得益」(proceeds of an offence)的定義。上訴方認為「犯罪得益」應僅指犯罪所得的「淨利潤」(net profits)，而非總收款項，並引用HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George案支持其論點。控方則認為「犯罪得益」應包括所有與犯罪活動相關的收款，不限於淨利潤。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第2(6)(a)條，「犯罪得益」的定義清晰且具體，包括「任何與該罪行有關而收受的款項或其他報酬」(any payments or other rewards received by him in connection with the commission of that offence)，不限於「利潤」。法庭引用英國案例R v May及香港案例HKSAR v Shing Siu Ming & Ors (No2)，強調立法目的在於剝奪被告從犯罪中獲得的全部利益，而非僅限於淨利潤。因此，上訴人收到的約3,970萬港元非法賭博投注款項均屬「犯罪得益」。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了以下案例： - HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George (2014) 17 HKCFAR 319：上訴方援引此案，但上訴法庭認為該案重點在於區分「贓款」(tainted money)與「潔淨資金」(clean money)，而非「犯罪得益」是否僅限於淨利潤。 - R v May (HL(E)) [2008] 1 AC 1028：法庭引用此案中Lord Bingham of Cornhill的觀點，強調沒收令旨在剝奪被告從犯罪中獲得的全部利益，而非扣除開支後的淨利潤。 - HKSAR v Shing Siu Ming & Ors (No2) [2000] 3 HKC 83：此案確立了《販毒(追討得益)條例》中「從販毒中獲益」是指與販毒相關的總收款項，而非僅限於利潤。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回上訴人就沒收令提出的上訴，維持原審法官的裁決。上訴人須於2015年6月10日前向香港特別行政區政府支付10,334,886.76港元。如未能支付，則須額外服刑5年，該刑期將與其原有的3年6個月監禁刑期分期執行。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了香港沒收犯罪得益法律的嚴厲性，明確指出「犯罪得益」不僅限於犯罪的「淨利潤」，而是包括所有與犯罪活動相關的收款或報酬。這對涉及有組織及嚴重罪行的被告具有重要警示意義，即即使實際利潤不高，其所有相關收款也可能被沒收。此外，法庭強調在確定沒收令的默認監禁刑期時，不適用「整體性原則」(principle of totality)。 --- ### 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 LIN KEI TAT - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yeung VP, Hon J Poon J, Hon D Pang J - Date of Judgment: 10 March 2015 ### Factual Background The appellant, Lin Kei-tat, pleaded guilty to two counts of money laundering before a District Judge and was sentenced to 3 years and 6 months imprisonment. He was alleged to have laundered approximately HK$39.7 million in illicit money between 2004 and 2010. The trial judge, pursuant to sections 8, 11, and 13 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, found that the appellant had benefited from the money laundering offences and assessed his proceeds of crime at approximately HK$39.7 million. As the appellant's realisable assets at the time amounted to only about HK$10.3 million, the trial judge made a confiscation order for this amount, with an additional 5 years imprisonment in default of payment. The appellant appealed against the confiscation order. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was the definition of "proceeds of an offence" under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance. The appellant argued that "proceeds of an offence" should refer only to the "net profit" derived from the crime, not the gross receipts, citing HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George. The prosecution contended that "proceeds of an offence" should encompass all payments received in connection with the criminal activity, not just net profit. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that, according to section 2(6)(a) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, the definition of "proceeds of an offence" is clear and specific, including "any payments or other rewards received by him in connection with the commission of that offence," and is not limited to "profit." The court cited English case R v May and Hong Kong case HKSAR v Shing Siu Ming & Ors (No2), emphasizing that the legislative intent is to deprive defendants of the entire benefit gained from crime, not just net profit. Therefore, the approximately HK$39.7 million in illegal gambling bets received by the appellant constituted "proceeds of an offence." ### Key Precedents & Statutes The key precedents cited in this case were: - HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George (2014) 17 HKCFAR 319: The appellant relied on this case, but the Court of Appeal clarified that it focused on distinguishing "tainted money" from "clean money," not on whether "proceeds of an offence" was limited to net profit. - R v May (HL(E)) [2008] 1 AC 1028: The court cited Lord Bingham of Cornhill's comments in this case, highlighting that confiscation aims to deprive defendants of the total value of property or advantage obtained, not their net profit after deductions. - HKSAR v Shing Siu Ming & Ors (No2) [2000] 3 HKC 83: This case established that "benefited from drug trafficking" under the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance refers to the aggregate value of gross payments received, not merely profit. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the appellant's appeal against the confiscation order, upholding the trial judge's decision. The appellant is required to pay HK$10,334,886.76 to the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region by 10 June 2015. In default of payment, he must serve an additional 5 years imprisonment, to be served consecutively to his original 3 years and 6 months sentence for money laundering. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms the stringent nature of Hong Kong's proceeds of crime legislation, clarifying that "proceeds of an offence" is not limited to "net profit" but includes all payments or rewards received in connection with criminal activities. This serves as a significant warning to defendants involved in organized and serious crimes that all related receipts may be confiscated, even if their actual profit is low. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the principle of totality does not apply when determining the default imprisonment term for a confiscation order. --- ### 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.