單一串謀詐騙的認定？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v Lai Kin Hang Erwin (黎建衡) 及其他人 - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：Macrae 副庭長、McWalters 上訴法官、Zervos 上訴法官 - 判決日期：2019年5月23日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及六名申請人（D1、D2、D3、D4、D5、D8）就其串謀詐騙及處理已知道或相信為可公訴罪行得益的罪名提出上訴許可申請。申請人均為一間名為Wincades International Accounting Affairs Limited（Wincades）公司的成員。控方指控Wincades透過「電話推銷員」假冒銀行或金融機構職員，向有按揭或貸款問題的人士進行「cold calls」，誘使他們到Wincades辦公室簽訂「顧問協議」並支付高昂的「顧問費」，聲稱可協助他們取得優惠貸款。受害人支付顧問費後，Wincades卻未能兌現承諾，甚至拒絕退款。D1、D2、D3被指控為公司控制人，而D4、D5、D8則為銷售人員。原審法官裁定所有申請人罪名成立，並判處監禁。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於：(1) 控方是否已充分證明存在單一的全球性串謀詐騙，而非一系列較小的個別串謀；(2) 原審法官在認定支票簽名時是否錯誤地將舉證責任倒置，或在沒有專家證據的情況下充當專家；(3) 即使有部分受害人最終成功獲得貸款，這是否足以推翻串謀詐騙的犯罪意圖和不誠實元素；(4) 銷售人員（D4、D5、D8）是否明知並參與了詐騙計劃。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭維持原審法官的裁決，認為有足夠證據證明存在單一的全球性串謀詐騙。法庭指出，串謀者在詐騙計劃中扮演不同角色，但共同目標是誘騙受害人支付顧問費。即使有部分受害人最終成功獲得貸款，這並不影響串謀詐騙的存在，因為關鍵在於串謀者是否有不誠實的意圖。法庭亦裁定原審法官在認定支票簽名時並未倒置舉證責任，而是根據客觀事實作出合理推斷。銷售人員的行為，包括明知虛假陳述並促使受害人簽訂協議及支付費用，足以證明他們參與了串謀。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了R v Griffiths (1965) 49 Cr App R 279，確立了串謀罪中，串謀者不需認識所有其他參與者或計劃的全部範圍，但必須知道存在一個超越其自身行為的計劃，並自願參與其中。此外，亦引用了Mo Yuk Ping v HKSAR (2007) 10 HKCFAR 386，闡釋串謀詐騙罪的不誠實元素，即協議使用不誠實手段，意圖造成經濟損失或使經濟利益面臨風險。法庭亦提及了Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (trading as Croxfords Club) [2017] 3 WLR 1212中對Ghosh兩階段測試的討論，但未就此作出裁決。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回所有六名申請人（D1、D2、D3、D4、D5、D8）就其定罪提出的上訴許可申請，並維持原審法官的定罪。D1、D2、D4和D5隨後撤回了就判刑提出的上訴許可申請，D8也撤回了恢復其判刑上訴申請的請求，這些申請亦被駁回。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了串謀詐騙罪中「單一全球性串謀」的認定原則，即串謀者即使扮演不同角色，只要共同目標一致，且明知存在超越其自身行為的詐騙計劃，便可構成單一串謀。即使有部分受害人未遭受實際損失或成功獲得貸款，亦不影響串謀罪中不誠實意圖的認定。法庭亦強調，在無反證情況下，根據客觀事實可作出合理推斷，而無需專家證據。 --- ### 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 Lai Kin Hang Erwin and Others - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Macrae VP, McWalters JA and Zervos JA - Date of Judgment: 23 May 2019 ### Factual Background This case involves applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence by six applicants (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D8) for conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to deal with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. The applicants were all involved with Wincades International Accounting Affairs Limited (Wincades). The prosecution alleged that Wincades used 'cold callers' posing as bank or financial institution staff to target individuals with mortgage or loan issues, inducing them to visit Wincades' office, sign 'consultancy agreements', and pay exorbitant 'consultancy fees' for assistance in obtaining favourable loans. Victims often found Wincades failed to deliver on promises and refused refunds. D1, D2, D3 were identified as company controllers, while D4, D5, D8 were salespersons. The trial judge convicted all applicants and sentenced them to imprisonment. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issues were: (1) whether the prosecution sufficiently proved a single global conspiracy to defraud, rather than a series of smaller, individual conspiracies; (2) whether the trial judge erred by reversing the burden of proof or acting as an expert without expert evidence when identifying signatures on cheques; (3) whether the fact that some victims eventually obtained loans negated the element of dishonesty and fraudulent intent in the conspiracy; and (4) whether the salespersons (D4, D5, D8) knowingly participated in the fraudulent scheme. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's decision, finding sufficient evidence for a single global conspiracy to defraud. The court noted that conspirators played different roles but shared a common objective to induce victims to pay consultancy fees. The success of some loan applications did not negate the existence of the conspiracy, as the crucial factor was the conspirators' dishonest intent. The court also ruled that the trial judge did not reverse the burden of proof regarding signatures but made reasonable inferences from objective facts. The salespersons' actions, including knowingly making false representations and inducing victims to sign agreements and pay fees, proved their participation in the conspiracy. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited R v Griffiths (1965) 49 Cr App R 279, establishing that in a conspiracy, participants need not know all other parties or the full extent of the scheme, but must know of a scheme beyond their own actions and attach themselves to it. Mo Yuk Ping v HKSAR (2007) 10 HKCFAR 386 was also cited, clarifying the element of dishonesty in conspiracy to defraud, which involves an agreement to use dishonest means with the purpose of causing economic loss or putting economic interests at risk. The court also mentioned the discussion of the Ghosh two-stage test in Ivey v Genting Casinos UK Ltd (trading as Croxfords Club) [2017] 3 WLR 1212 but did not rule on it. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused all six applicants' (D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, D8) applications for leave to appeal against conviction, upholding the trial judge's convictions. D1, D2, D4, and D5 subsequently withdrew their applications for leave to appeal against sentence, and D8 withdrew his application to reinstate his sentence appeal, leading to the dismissal of these applications as well. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the principle of a 'single global conspiracy' in fraud cases: even if conspirators have different roles, a common objective and awareness of a broader fraudulent scheme are sufficient. The fact that some victims did not suffer actual loss or even obtained loans does not negate the dishonest intent central to a conspiracy. The court also emphasized that reasonable inferences can be drawn from objective facts without expert evidence, especially when no contradictory evidence is presented. --- ### 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.