洗黑錢罪的量刑原則？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v FONG CHI YAM（方志鑫） - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：楊振權署理首席法官、張澤祐上訴法官、彭偉昌上訴法官 - 判決日期：2019年1月22日 ### 案情摘要 申請人方志鑫經營一間找換店，被控兩項處理已知或相信代表可公訴罪行得益的財產（俗稱洗黑錢）罪名。兩名受害人謝先生和彭先生分別於2015年7月28日和29日被騙，將港幣409,000元和37,100元交給申請人。申請人聲稱是應一名熟客Maa的要求代為收款，並將款項轉交給Maa指定的「肥仔」。申請人承認曾對款項來源感到可疑，但為維持生意未有深究。原審法官裁定申請人兩項罪名成立，判處總監禁期54個月。申請人就定罪及判刑提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人就定罪上訴的主要爭議點在於其在警誡會面中的招認是否自願作出，以及原審法官對警方證供的接納和對專家證供的理解是否正確。申請人認為警方存在不一致的證供，且其招認是在警方施壓下作出。就判刑上訴，爭議點在於原審法官所採用的量刑起點是否過高，以及是否錯誤地根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》（Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455）加重刑罰，因沒有證據顯示申請人知悉款項來自電話騙案。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，原審法官已詳細分析控辯雙方證據，並有充分理據拒絕申請人關於招認非自願的說法，接納警方的證供。法庭指出，申請人處理款項的方式極不尋常，包括使用鈔票號碼作識別、不發收據、對Maa背景知之甚少等，這些客觀證據足以證明申請人有合理理由相信款項是「黑錢」。申請人自己亦承認對款項感到可疑。因此，定罪裁決穩妥。然而，上訴法庭認為原審法官採用的量刑起點過高，且在沒有證據證明申請人知悉款項來自電話騙案的情況下，不應因電話騙案的普遍性而加重刑罰。法庭強調，洗黑錢罪的量刑應主要反映洗黑錢的金額，而非被告所得利益或其是否知悉上游罪行。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了HKSAR v Pang Hung Fai (2014) 17 HKCFAR 778和HKSAR v Yeung Ka Sing Carson (2016) 19 HKCFAR 279，以確立洗黑錢案件中處理被告心態的法律原則。此外，亦引用了Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 197，闡明洗黑錢罪的量刑原則應主要反映洗黑錢的金額。HKSAR v Chan Yu Sing and Another CACC13/2008被引用以說明被告改變立場不必然代表招認非自願。HKSAR v Javid Kamran, CACC 400/2004則強調洗黑錢是嚴重罪行。申請人曾依賴HKSAR v Yan Sui Ling (2012) 15 HKCFAR 146，但上訴法庭認為該案不適用於本案情況。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人就定罪提出的上訴申請。就判刑上訴，法庭批准上訴，將第一項控罪的刑期從48個月減至2年半，第二項控罪的刑期從32個月減至1年。第二項控罪的其中6個月與第一項控罪的刑期分期執行，使總監禁期從54個月減至36個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了洗黑錢罪的嚴重性及其量刑原則，特別是量刑應主要考慮洗黑錢的金額，而非被告是否知悉上游罪行或其所得利益。同時，法庭強調在沒有證據證明被告知悉上游罪行性質的情況下，不應僅因該類罪行普遍而加重刑罰。這對處理類似洗黑錢案件的量刑具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 FONG CHI YAM - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Hon Yeung Acting CJHC, Cheung JA, Pang JA - Date of Judgment: 22 January 2019 ### Factual Background The applicant, Fong Chi Yam, operated a money exchange shop and faced two charges of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (money laundering). Two victims, Mr. Tse and Mr. Pang, were deceived into handing over HK$409,000 and HK$37,100 respectively to the applicant on 28 and 29 July 2015. The applicant claimed he received the money on behalf of a regular customer, Maa, and then passed it to a person referred to as "fatty" as instructed by Maa. The applicant admitted he felt suspicious about the money's source but did not inquire further for business reasons. The trial judge convicted the applicant on both charges and sentenced him to a total of 54 months' imprisonment. The applicant sought leave to appeal against conviction and/or sentence. ### Key Legal Issues The main issues for the conviction appeal were whether the applicant's admissions during police interviews were voluntary, and whether the trial judge correctly accepted police evidence and understood expert testimony. The applicant argued inconsistencies in police evidence and that his admissions were made under duress. For the sentence appeal, the issues were whether the starting points adopted by the trial judge were manifestly excessive and whether the judge erred in enhancing the sentence under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455) without evidence that the applicant knew the money originated from a telephone deception. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had thoroughly analyzed the evidence and had sufficient grounds to reject the applicant's claims of involuntary admissions and to accept the police officers' evidence. The court noted that the applicant's handling of the money was highly unusual, including using banknote serial numbers for identification, not issuing receipts, and having limited knowledge of Maa's background. These objective facts, coupled with the applicant's own admission of suspicion, provided reasonable grounds to believe the money was "black money," thus upholding the conviction. However, the Court of Appeal found the trial judge's starting points for sentencing to be manifestly excessive. It also ruled that without evidence of the applicant's knowledge that the money originated from telephone deception, the sentence should not have been enhanced based on the prevalence of such offences. Sentencing for money laundering should primarily reflect the amount laundered, not the benefit obtained or knowledge of the predicate offence. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The court cited HKSAR v Pang Hung Fai (2014) 17 HKCFAR 778 and HKSAR v Yeung Ka Sing Carson (2016) 19 HKCFAR 279 for legal principles concerning the mens rea in money laundering cases. Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung [2012] 1 HKLRD 197 was referenced for the principle that sentencing for money laundering should primarily reflect the amount laundered. HKSAR v Chan Yu Sing and Another CACC13/2008 was cited to support that a change in stance by a suspect does not automatically render an admission involuntary. HKSAR v Javid Kamran, CACC 400/2004 emphasized the seriousness of money laundering. The applicant's reliance on HKSAR v Yan Sui Ling (2012) 15 HKCFAR 146 was deemed unsupportive of his position. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against conviction. For the sentence appeal, leave was granted, and the appeal was allowed. The sentence for Charge 1 was reduced from 48 months to 2.5 years, and for Charge 2 from 32 months to 1 year. Six months of the sentence for Charge 2 were ordered to run consecutively with Charge 1, reducing the total term of imprisonment from 54 months to 36 months. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reiterates the gravity of money laundering and clarifies sentencing principles, emphasizing that the amount laundered is the primary factor, not the defendant's knowledge of the predicate offence or personal gain. It also highlights that sentence enhancement based on the prevalence of a predicate offence is inappropriate without evidence that the defendant knew the money's origin. This provides important guidance for sentencing in similar money laundering cases. --- ### 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.