信用卡盜竊及詐騙案的判刑原則？維持原判

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v FUNG Wai-yip (馮偉業) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：McWalters JA 及 Anthea Pang J - 判決日期：2019年11月29日 ### 案情摘要 申請人馮偉業（第二被告）在區域法院承認32項盜竊信用卡罪及1項串謀以欺騙手段取得財產罪。他於2016年10月1日至2017年4月20日期間，在公共游泳池更衣室的儲物櫃盜竊了32張信用卡。他使用萬能鑰匙開啟儲物櫃，並將盜來的信用卡交給第三被告，再由第三被告轉交給包括第一被告在內的其他人士，用於在商店（主要是Apple Store）購買iPhone和禮品卡。購買的物品會交還給申請人轉售，所得收益約三分之二歸申請人所有。涉案貨物總值約港幣66萬元。申請人因欠下80萬元債務，被高利貸集團要求盜竊信用卡。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人就其判刑提出上訴申請，主要爭議點為：判刑是否過重，因為他認為其他類似案件的判刑較輕；本案涉及盜竊和使用真實信用卡，其複雜程度和規模不及製造和使用偽造信用卡的案件；以及本案應被視為多宗小額且不相關的案件，而非中等規模的犯罪活動。控方則認為盜竊信用卡與使用信用卡是獨立的犯罪行為，判刑可部分分期執行。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭維持原審法官的判決，認為信用卡罪行性質嚴重，必須予以阻嚇。法庭引用了《HKSAR v Lam See Chung, Stephen》一案的判例，確認偽造信用卡詐騙的判刑原則同樣適用於使用盜竊真實信用卡的詐騙案。法庭認為本案是一宗中等規模的犯罪活動，持續超過6個月，涉及至少7人，使用萬能鑰匙，並盜竊了32張信用卡，涉案金額達港幣66萬元。法庭亦指出，雖然單次盜竊的金額和卡片數量可能不大，但整體組織、參與人數、重複犯案以及詐騙計劃的持續時間，均顯示其整體規模和複雜程度。申請人在犯罪活動中扮演關鍵角色，因此原審法官將量刑起點提高6個月是合理的。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《R v Chan Sui To and Anor》[1996] 2 HKCLR 128，指出涉及中等規模、金額介乎港幣5萬至15萬元的信用卡詐騙案，若被告扮演積極角色，經審訊後應判處5至6年監禁。此外，引用《HKSAR v Lam See Chung, Stephen》[2013] 5 HKLRD 242，確立偽造信用卡詐騙的判刑原則適用於使用盜竊真實信用卡的詐騙案。法庭亦引用《HKSAR v Nkwo Nnaemeka Darlington》[2016] 1 HKLRD 692 及《HKSAR v Nwadiuto Samuel Joseph》CACC 210/2016，強調上訴法庭在審理判刑上訴時，應著重審視申請人本身的判刑是否存在可上訴的錯誤，而非僅與其他案件作比較。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人的上訴申請，維持原審法官的判刑。原審判決為：32項盜竊罪每項監禁8個月，與串謀以欺騙手段取得財產罪的4年4個月監禁同期執行。總刑期為4年4個月。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了信用卡詐騙罪行的嚴重性及阻嚇性判刑的必要性。判決強調，在評估犯罪規模時，應綜合考慮犯罪組織的整體性、參與人數、重複犯案的頻率及持續時間，而非僅限於單次犯案的規模。此外，上訴法庭再次強調，判刑上訴應聚焦於原審判決是否存在可上訴的錯誤，而非單純與其他案件的判刑進行比較。法庭亦指出，盜竊信用卡與使用信用卡是獨立的犯罪行為，其判刑可部分分期執行，這對未來的類似案件具有指導意義。 --- ### 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 FUNG Wai-yip (馮偉業) - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon McWalters JA and Anthea Pang J - Date of Judgment: 29 November 2019 ### Factual Background The applicant, Fung Wai-yip (D2), pleaded guilty in the District Court to 32 charges of theft of credit cards and one charge of conspiracy to obtain property by deception. Between 1 October 2016 and 20 April 2017, he stole 32 credit cards from lockers in public swimming pool changing rooms. He used master keys to open the lockers and passed the stolen cards to D3, who then distributed them to others, including D1, to make purchases (mainly iPhones and gift cards from Apple Store). The purchased items were returned to the applicant for resale, with the applicant keeping about two-thirds of the proceeds. The total value of goods involved was approximately HK$660,000. The applicant claimed he was forced to steal credit cards by loan sharks after incurring a debt of HK$800,000. ### Key Legal Issues The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence, arguing that it was excessive compared to other similar cases, that the operation involving genuine stolen credit cards was less sophisticated than those involving counterfeit cards, and that his case should be treated as multiple small, unconnected operations rather than a medium-sized one. The prosecution contended that stealing credit cards and using them were separate criminal acts, and sentences could have been ordered to run partly consecutively. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal upheld the sentencing judge's decision, emphasizing the seriousness of credit card offences and the need for deterrence. The court affirmed that sentencing principles for counterfeit credit card fraud apply equally to cases involving stolen genuine cards, citing HKSAR v Lam See Chung, Stephen. The court found the operation to be medium-sized, lasting over 6 months, involving at least 7 individuals, the use of master keys, and 32 stolen cards with a total value of HK$660,000. It was held that the overall organization, number of participants, repeated offending, and duration of the scheme, rather than individual instances, determined the scale and sophistication of the operation. The judge's enhancement of the starting point by 6 months for the applicant's pivotal role was deemed reasonable. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited R v Chan Sui To and Anor [1996] 2 HKCLR 128, noting that a medium-sized credit card fraud operation involving HK$50,000 to HK$150,000, with an active role, should attract a sentence of 5 to 6 years' imprisonment after trial. HKSAR v Lam See Chung, Stephen [2013] 5 HKLRD 242 was relied upon to confirm that sentencing principles for counterfeit credit card fraud apply to cases involving stolen genuine cards. HKSAR v Nkwo Nnaemeka Darlington [2016] 1 HKLRD 692 and HKSAR v Nwadiuto Samuel Joseph CACC 210/2016 were cited to stress that appellate courts should focus on whether the sentencing judge made an appealable error, rather than merely comparing sentences with other unrelated cases. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal refused the applicant's application for leave to appeal against sentence. The original sentence of 8 months' imprisonment for each of the 32 theft charges, to run concurrently with the 4 years and 4 months' imprisonment for the conspiracy charge, was upheld. The total effective sentence remained 4 years and 4 months. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reiterates the gravity of credit card fraud and the necessity of deterrent sentences. It clarifies that the scale of a criminal operation should be assessed by considering its overall organization, the number of participants, the frequency of repeated offences, and its duration, rather than just the scale of individual acts. The Court of Appeal also reinforced that sentence appeals should focus on identifying appealable errors in the original judgment, not merely comparing sentences with other cases. Furthermore, it was noted that stealing credit cards and using them are distinct criminal acts, and sentences for such offences could potentially be ordered to run partly consecutively, providing guidance for future similar 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.