洗黑錢判刑是否過輕？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：律政司司長 對 谢志建 (XIE ZHIJIAN) - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：彭偉昌法官、潘敏琦法官、彭寶琴法官 - 判決日期：2025年4月7日 ### 案情摘要 答辯人謝志建在區域法院承認一項俗稱「洗黑錢」罪，被判處監禁33個月。律政司司長根據《刑事訴訟程序條例》第81A條，以上述判刑違反原則及/或明顯不足為由，向上訴法庭提出覆核判刑申請。答辯人是香港佳順國際貿易有限公司的唯一董事和股東，並持有涉案銀行戶口，該戶口在約8個月內處理了總額超過1億港元的多筆不同貨幣款項，並涉及跨境元素。答辯人求情時聲稱自己被他人利用，僅提供戶口資料，對「黑錢」使用不知情。上訴法庭在聆訊期間曾關注答辯人求情時的說法可能意味他無罪，促請雙方考慮定罪是否穩妥。最終，答辯人確認無意推翻認罪答辯，並撤回了相關求情因素。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原審法官對「洗黑錢」罪判處的33個月監禁刑期是否明顯不足或違反量刑原則。律政司司長一方認為，涉案「黑錢」金額龐大，且涉及國際元素，原審法官採納的3年半量刑基準明顯過低，並提出應採納不低於5年的量刑基準。答辯人一方則強調「洗黑錢」案件並無量刑指引，涉案金額並非唯一決定性因素，並指出原審法官已充分考慮相關因素，認為3年半的量刑基準在合理範圍內。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭指出，雖然「洗黑錢」罪沒有量刑指引，但判刑時必須考慮控罪的最高刑期及阻嚇性，同時也要考慮個別案件的案情及量刑法官的整體「觀感」，而非僅依賴涉案金額。法庭認為，本案涉案戶口在8個月內處理逾億港元款項，並涉及跨境元素，原審法官採納的3年半量刑基準確實明顯不足或原則有錯。然而，由於答辯人將於短期內獲釋，若此時批准覆核申請將對答辯人造成不公，因為他在聆訊期間因法庭關注求情事項而承受了精神壓力。法庭行使酌情權，拒絕了律政司司長的覆核申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗「洗黑錢」案件的判例，包括 HKSAR v Boma ([2012] 2 HKLRD 33)、香港特別行政區 訴 許有益 ([2010] 5 HKLRD 536)、律政司司長 訴 雲國強 ([2012] 1 HKLRD 197) 等，以討論「洗黑錢」罪的量刑原則和考慮因素。法庭特別強調，這些案例並未為「洗黑錢」罪定下僵化的量刑指引，涉案金額雖是重要考慮，但並非唯一因素。此外，HKSAR v Salim ([2014] 6 HKC 678) 案被引用以澄清「處理」黑錢的定義，以及 AG’s Reference No. 4 of 1989 ([1990] 1 WLR 41) 案則支持法庭在酌情權下可拒絕覆核申請以避免對被告造成不公。 ### 裁決與命令 高等法院上訴法庭拒絕了律政司司長提出的覆核判刑申請。儘管法庭認為原審判刑的量刑基準明顯不足或原則有錯，但考慮到若批准申請將對答辯人造成不公，故行使酌情權維持原判。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了「洗黑錢」罪判刑的複雜性，強調量刑法官應綜合考慮多項因素，而非僅依賴涉案金額。判決也突顯了上訴法庭在覆核判刑時的酌情權，即使原審判刑存在不足，若批准覆核會對被告造成不公，法庭仍可拒絕申請。這對未來涉及類似情況的判刑覆核申請具有參考意義。 --- ### 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: Secretary for Justice v Xie Zhijian - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Pang Wai Cheong JA, Hon Poon Man Ki JA, Hon Pang Po Ching JA - Date of Judgment: 7 April 2025 ### Factual Background The respondent, Xie Zhijian, pleaded guilty to a money laundering offence in the District Court and was sentenced to 33 months' imprisonment. The Secretary for Justice applied to the Court of Appeal for a review of the sentence under section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, arguing that the sentence was unduly lenient or wrong in principle. The respondent was the sole director and shareholder of Hong Kong Jiashun International Trading Co. Ltd. and held the bank account involved, which processed over HK$100 million in various currencies over approximately 8 months, with cross-border elements. In mitigation, the respondent claimed he was exploited by another person, only providing account details and being unaware of the illicit use of the funds. The Court of Appeal raised concerns during the hearing that the respondent's mitigation might imply innocence, prompting both parties to consider the soundness of the conviction. Ultimately, the respondent confirmed he had no intention to overturn his guilty plea and withdrew the contentious mitigation factors. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issue was whether the 33-month imprisonment sentence for money laundering imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate or wrong in principle. The Secretary for Justice argued that the large sum of "black money" involved and the international elements meant the 3.5-year sentencing starting point was too low, proposing a starting point of no less than 5 years. The respondent contended that there are no sentencing guidelines for money laundering, and the amount involved is not the sole determinant. He argued that the trial judge had adequately considered all relevant factors, and the 3.5-year starting point was within a reasonable range. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal noted that while there are no fixed sentencing guidelines for money laundering, sentences must reflect the maximum penalty and the need for deterrence. Judges should also consider the specific facts of each case and their overall "feel" for it, rather than relying solely on the amount of money involved. The court found that the respondent's account processed over HK$100 million in 8 months with cross-border elements, making the 3.5-year starting point adopted by the trial judge manifestly inadequate or wrong in principle. However, as the respondent was due for imminent release, granting the review would cause him injustice, given the mental stress he endured during the adjourned hearings due to the court's concerns about his mitigation. Exercising its discretion, the court refused the Secretary for Justice's application. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited several money laundering precedents, including HKSAR v Boma ([2012] 2 HKLRD 33), HKSAR v Hui Yau Yick ([2010] 5 HKLRD 536), and Secretary for Justice v Wan Kwok Keung ([2012] 1 HKLRD 197), to discuss sentencing principles and factors for money laundering. The court emphasized that these cases did not establish rigid sentencing guidelines, and the amount involved, while important, is not the sole factor. HKSAR v Salim ([2014] 6 HKC 678) was cited to clarify the definition of "dealing with" illicit funds. AG’s Reference No. 4 of 1989 ([1990] 1 WLR 41) supported the court's discretion to refuse a review application to avoid injustice to the defendant. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the Secretary for Justice's application for review of sentence. Despite finding the original sentence's starting point manifestly inadequate or wrong in principle, the court exercised its discretion to uphold the original sentence to avoid causing injustice to the respondent. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reiterates the complexity of sentencing for money laundering, emphasizing that judges must consider multiple factors beyond just the amount involved. It also highlights the Court of Appeal's discretion in sentence reviews; even if an original sentence is found to be inadequate, the court may refuse a review if granting it would cause injustice to the defendant. This has implications for future sentence review applications in similar circumstances. --- ### 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.