DCCC431/2017

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v HUI LOK TO, KEVIN (D2), MAN YIU PUN (D3), OKAFOR JOEK KINGSLEY (D4) - 法院：區域法院 (DCCC) - 法官：HH Judge Dufton - 判決日期：2018年5月31日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及三名被告（D2、D3、D4）被控串謀處理或處理從可公訴罪行得益的財產（俗稱洗黑錢）。D2被控與D1（已故）及一名叫Joe的人串謀開設Asia Trading Co銀行賬戶進行洗錢。D3被控與D4串謀開設Asia Supply Resources銀行賬戶及使用其個人賬戶處理款項。D4被控使用家庭傭工Casia Grace Garcia（PW4）的銀行賬戶接收款項並由Casia提取後交給D4。控方指控所有被告均知悉或有合理理由相信這些款項是犯罪得益。 ### 核心法律爭議 核心法律問題是被告是否串謀處理或處理犯罪得益，以及他們是否知悉或有合理理由相信這些財產是可公訴罪行的得益。控方需證明存在協議（conspiracy）及相關的犯罪意圖（mens rea）。D2辯稱他為Joe開設公司和賬戶是為了正當的舊衣買賣生意，不疑款項來源非法。D3辯稱他為D4開設公司和賬戶是因為D4是外國人且無住址證明，並允許D4使用其個人賬戶，不疑款項合法性。D4則否認使用Casia的賬戶或從她那裡收到任何錢。 ### 判決理由 法官根據 HKSAR v Lung Ming Chu 案的原則，裁定控方必須證明被告與同謀者有處理財產的協議，且在協議時知悉或有合理理由相信財產代表犯罪得益。對於「合理理由相信」（reasonable grounds to believe），法官引用 HKSAR v Yeung Ka Sing, Carson 和 Seng Yuet Fong v HKSAR 案的測試，即客觀上任何人都會如此相信。法官拒絕了D2和D3關於其行為是為了正當商業目的的辯解，認為他們的解釋不可信，並從客觀事實推斷他們有合理理由相信款項為犯罪得益。法官亦拒絕D4的證供，認為其不可信。 ### 引用案例與條文 - HKSAR v Lung Ming Chu [2009] 3 HKC 137 - HKSAR v Singh Ramanjit HCMA 129/2016 - HKSAR v Yeung Ka Sing, Carson FACC 6/2015 - HKSAR v Pang Hung Fai (2014) 17 HKCFAR 98 - Seng Yuet Fong v HKSAR [1999] 2 HKC 833 - R v Sharp (1988) 1 WLR 7 - HKSAR v Lee Kwan Kong CACC 198/2004 - HKSAR v Tang Siu Man [1997-98] 1 HKCFAR 107 - HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo & another CACC 314/2006 - Wong Kwok Wang, Warren v HKSAR (2009) 12 HKCFAR 218 - HKSAR v Wong Lin Hung (2016) 19 HKCFAR 578 - HKSAR v Okafor [2012] 1 HKLRD 1041 - HKSAR v Ip Chun Yin CACC 241/2014 - Secretary for Justice v Lam Tat Ming [2000] 2 HKLRD 431 - R v Heaton [1993] Crim LR 593 - R v Paris (1993) 97 Cr App R 100 ### 裁決與命令 D2被判第3項控罪罪名成立。第4項替代控罪存檔，未經法庭或上訴法庭許可不得處理。D3被判第5項及第9項控罪罪名成立。D4被判第6、7、8項控罪罪名成立。 ### 判決啟示 判決強調在處理洗錢案件時，即使被告聲稱不知情，但若客觀事實顯示其有合理理由相信款項為犯罪得益，仍可被定罪。法院對被告的證供進行了詳細的credibility評估，並指出若辯方證供不可信，並不影響控方證明beyond reasonable doubt的責任。此外，法官在處理證人Casia Grace Garcia的免予起訴（immunity from prosecution）證供時，採取了謹慎態度，但最終接受其證供。判決也重申了在沒有相反證據的情況下，允許他人使用銀行賬戶處理資金會產生賬戶持有人有合理理由相信資金為犯罪得益的推論（inevitable inference）。 --- ### 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 HUI LOK TO, KEVIN (D2), MAN YIU PUN (D3), OKAFOR JOEK KINGSLEY (D4) - Court: District Court (DCCC) - Judge: HH Judge Dufton - Date of Judgment: 31 May 2018 ### Factual Background The case involves three defendants (D2, D3, D4) charged with conspiracy to deal with or dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (money laundering). D2 was accused of conspiring with D1 (deceased) and a person named Joe to set up an Asia Trading Co bank account for money laundering. D3 was accused of conspiring with D4 to set up an Asia Supply Resources bank account and using his personal account to handle funds. D4 was accused of using the bank accounts of a domestic helper, Casia Grace Garcia (PW4), to receive funds which Casia then withdrew and gave to D4. The prosecution alleged all defendants knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were criminal proceeds. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues were whether the defendants conspired to deal with or dealt with criminal proceeds, and whether they knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the property represented proceeds of an indictable offence. The prosecution needed to prove the existence of an agreement (conspiracy) and the relevant mens rea. D2 argued he set up the company and account for Joe for legitimate used clothing business and did not suspect illegal funds. D3 claimed he set up the company and account for D4 because D4 was a foreigner without address proof, and allowed D4 to use his personal account, not suspecting legitimacy. D4 denied using Casia's accounts or receiving money from her. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge, following HKSAR v Lung Ming Chu, ruled that the prosecution must prove an agreement to deal with property and that at the time of agreement, the defendants knew or had reasonable grounds to believe the property represented criminal proceeds. For "reasonable grounds to believe," the judge applied the test from HKSAR v Yeung Ka Sing, Carson and Seng Yuet Fong v HKSAR, requiring objective belief. The judge rejected D2's and D3's explanations as incredible, inferring from objective facts that they had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were criminal proceeds. D4's testimony was also rejected as incredible. ### Key Precedents & Statutes - HKSAR v Lung Ming Chu [2009] 3 HKC 137 - HKSAR v Singh Ramanjit HCMA 129/2016 - HKSAR v Yeung Ka Sing, Carson FACC 6/2015 - HKSAR v Pang Hung Fai (2014) 17 HKCFAR 98 - Seng Yuet Fong v HKSAR [1999] 2 HKC 833 - R v Sharp (1988) 1 WLR 7 - HKSAR v Lee Kwan Kong CACC 198/2004 - HKSAR v Tang Siu Man [1997-98] 1 HKCFAR 107 - HKSAR v Wong Chor Wo & another CACC 314/2006 - Wong Kwok Wang, Warren v HKSAR (2009) 12 HKCFAR 218 - HKSAR v Wong Lin Hung (2016) 19 HKCFAR 578 - HKSAR v Okafor [2012] 1 HKLRD 1041 - HKSAR v Ip Chun Yin CACC 241/2014 - Secretary for Justice v Lam Tat Ming [2000] 2 HKLRD 431 - R v Heaton [1993] Crim LR 593 - R v Paris (1993) 97 Cr App R 100 ### Decision & Orders D2 was convicted of Charge 3. Alternative Charge 4 was left on the court file not to be proceeded with without leave. D3 was convicted of Charges 5 and 9. D4 was convicted of Charges 6, 7, and 8. ### Key Takeaways The judgment highlights that even if defendants claim ignorance, objective facts indicating reasonable grounds to believe funds are criminal proceeds can lead to conviction. The court conducted a detailed credibility assessment of the defendants' testimonies, noting that incredible defense evidence does not shift the prosecution's burden of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The judge also cautiously accepted the testimony of witness Casia Grace Garcia, who testified under immunity from prosecution. The ruling reinforces that allowing others to use one's bank accounts for fund transfers, absent contrary evidence, leads to an inevitable inference that the account holder had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were criminal proceeds. --- ### 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.