DCCC404/2024

DCCC404/2024

A A B B DCCC 404/2024 C [2024] HKDC 1903 C D D 香港特別行政區 E 區域法院 E 刑事案件 2024 年第 404 號 F F G G ------------------------------ H 香港特別行政區 H 訴 I I 董智浩 J J ------------------------------ K K 主審法官： 區域法院法官謝沈智慧 L L 日期： 2024 年 11 月 11 日 M 出席人士： 黃榮智大律師，為外聘大律師，代表香港特別行政區 M N 許友迪大律師，由陳啟量律師行延聘，代表被告人 N 控罪： [1] 盜竊罪（Theft） O O [2] 至 [4] 以欺騙手段取得財產（Obtaining property by P P deception） Q Q ------------------------------ R R 判刑理由書 S ------------------------------ S T T U U V V  -2- A A B B 1. 被告人承認以下控罪： C C (1) 一項「盜竊」，違反香港法例第 210 章《盜竊罪條 D D 例》第 9 條（控罪 1）；及 E E F (2) 三項「以欺騙手段取得財產」，違反香港法例第 F 210 章《盜竊罪條例》第 17(1) 條（控罪 2 至 4）。 G G H 案情撮要 H I I 2. 被告人承認的案情撮要如下： J J K (1) 劉在萍女士（控方第一證人）住在九龍九龍城紅 K 磡愛景街 8 號海濱南岸 7 座 28 樓（28 樓）H 室 L L （H 室），而被告人則住在 28 樓 G 室。控方第一 M M 證人與被告人並不認識。 N N (2) 2023 年 1 月 18 日約 1900 時，控方第一證人回家， O O 但將鎖匙遺留在 H 室的匙孔內；該鎖匙扣在鎖匙 P P 包 （ 鎖 匙 包 ）， 鎖 匙 包 載有 以 下 物品（ 被 盜 財 Q 物）： Q R R (a) 控方第一證人的香港身份證； S S T (b) AEON 信 用 卡 （號 碼 4170062800522100） T （涉案信用卡）； U U V V  -3- A A B B C (c) 中國銀行提款咭（號碼 01291810561250）； C D D (d) 控方第一證人的員工證。 E E (3) 同日約 2215 時，控方第一證人獲 AEON 通知，涉 F F 案信用卡被用作以下欺詐交易： G G H 交易 日期（時間） 商戶名稱（地址） 金額 H 編號 I I 1 2023 年 1 月 18 日 7-11 便利店 港幣 120 元 J J （2136 時） （九龍九龍城紅磡福至街 38-42 號紅磡 灣中心地下）（地點 1） K K 2 2023 年 1 月 18 日 7-11 便利店 港幣 600 元 L L （2141 時） （九龍九龍城紅磡湖光街 1-7 號聯成大 M 廈地下 17D 號舖）（地點 2） M 3 2023 年 1 月 18 日 OK 便利店 港幣 540 元 N N （2142 時） （九龍九龍城紅磡湖光街 1-7 號聯成大 O 廈地下 17F 號舖）（地點 3） O P 總額 港幣 1,260 元 P Q Q (4) 地點 1 的閉路電視拍攝到事發當日 2134 時至 2135 R 時，被告人穿戴黑色鴨舌帽、白色口罩、深色外 R S 套、卡其色長褲及黑色運動鞋，在地點 1 用涉案信 S 用卡購買兩包香煙。 T T U U V V  -4- A A B B (5) 地點 2 的閉路電視拍攝到事發當日 2133 時至 2134 C 時，被告人穿戴黑色鴨舌帽、白色口罩、深色外 C 套、卡其色長褲及黑色運動鞋，在地點 2 用涉案信 D D 用卡購買一條香煙。 E E F (6) 警方並無從地點 3 取得閉路電視片段。 F G G (7) 控方第一證人證實交易 1 至 3 並非由她作出。 H H I (8) 經查看地點 1 及地點 2 的閉路電視片段，警員 I 25046（控方第二證人）於 2023 年 1 月 26 日在紅 J J 磡進行反罪惡巡邏，期間發現並截停被告人，被 K K 告 人 的 外 貌 與有 關 閉 路 電視 拍 攝 到的犯 案 人 相 L 似。 L M M (9) 被告人就交易 3 被警誡，在警誡下承認 2023 年 1 N 月 18 日在住所大廈 28 樓拾獲一個黑色鎖匙包。他 N O 看到鎖匙包內有信用卡，一時貪心使用該卡在紅 O 磡區 3 間便利店買煙。他買東西後，將鎖匙包丟棄 P P 在湖光街的垃圾桶。 Q Q R (10) 被告人被拘捕，在警誡下說：「比次機會，我知 R 錯喇」，又表示願意賠償。 S S T T U U V V  -5- A A B B (11) 警 方 檢 獲 被 告人 被 拘 捕 時所 穿 衣 物，即 以 下 各 C 項： C D D (a) 一頂黑色鴨舌帽 E E F (b) 一件藍色外套； F G G (c) 一條卡其色長褲。 H H (12) 被告人於拘捕現場所承認的事項，補錄在其後的 I I 會面紀錄，由被告人簽署和確認對該等承認事項 J J 沒有修改。 K K 搜屋 L L M M (13) 警方在被告人的住所搜屋，沒有發現。 N N 銀行結單 O O P (14) 根據涉案信用卡的銀行結單，事發當日僅有三筆 P Q 交易，分別在地點 1 至地點 3 進行，總額港幣 Q 1,260 元。 R R S S T T U U V V  -6- A A B B 罪行 C C (15) 案發所有期間： D D E (a) 被告人在涉案 28 樓偷竊涉案鎖匙包、一條鎖 E F 匙、一張信用卡、一張香港身份證、一張銀 F 行卡及一張員工證，而該等物品為屬於控方 G G 第一證人的財產（控罪 1）； H H I (b) 被告人以欺騙手段，即虛假地表示被告人獲 I 授權和有權使用持有人姓名為控方第一證人 J J 的涉案信用卡支付價值港幣 120 元的貨品的 K K 款項，從而不誠實地向牛奶有限公司的職員 L 取得該貨品，以圖永久地剝奪該公司的上述 L 財產（控罪 2）； M M N (c) 被告人以欺騙手段，即虛假地表示被告人獲 N O 授權和有權使用持有人姓名為控方第一證人 O 的涉案信用卡支付價值港幣 600 元的貨品的 P P 款項，從而不誠實地向牛奶有限公司的職員 Q Q 取得該貨品，以圖永久地剝奪該公司的上述 R 財產（控罪 3）； R S S (d) 被告人以欺騙手段，即虛假地表示被告人獲 T T 授權和有權使用持有人姓名為控方第一證人 U U V V  -7- A A B B 的涉案信用卡支付價值港幣 540 元的貨品的 C 款項，從而不誠實地向 OK 便利店有限公司 C 的職員取得該貨品，以圖永久地剝奪該公司 D D 的上述財產（控罪 4）。 E E F 被告人的背景 F G G 3. 被告人現年 43 歲，已婚，育有一名 7 歲的兒子。他曾於 H H 澳洲留學，接受大學程度教育。 I I 4. 大律師指被告人原經營汽車零件生意，但因疫情結束營 J J 業。其後被告人協助妻子從事網上化妝品銷售的業務。兩人從業務 K K 中平均每月賺取約 20,000 元的收入。被告現時是兼職倉務員，月入 L 約 14,000 元。 L M M 5. 被告人的父母均已退休，父親現年 72 歲，母親 69 歲。 N 父母於香港及澳洲兩地居住。被告人亦有兩名妹妹。被告人的母親 N O 患有肝癌、癲癇症及抑鬱症，須定期覆診。雖然家人均非與被告人 O 同住，但被告人有定期向父母支付家用。 P P Q 6. 被告人於 2023 年 2 月 20 日有一次定罪紀錄，涉及三項 Q R 控罪，但如本案並不類同，亦與不誠實無關。他被判處 81 小時社會 R 服務令、停牌 24 個月、需參與及完成駕駛改進課程及罰款。被告人 S S 已完成社會服務令。 T T U U V V  -8- A A B B 判刑原則 C C 7. 「盜竊」罪（控罪 1）的最高刑期為 10 年監禁；「以欺 D D 騙手段取得財產」罪（控罪 2 至 4）的最高刑期為 10 年監禁。這些 E E 控罪的案情千變萬化，因此沒有量刑指引。 F F 討論 G G H 控罪 1：盜竊 H I I 8. 辯方大律 師援引 香港 特別行 政區 訴 朱光輝 HCMA J J 355/2020 [2021] HKCFI 2376。該案中的被告人於麥當勞拾獲事主掉 K 在地上的銀包；銀包内有現金 1,000 元、事主的身分證、港澳通行 K L 證、一張八達通卡、兩張提款咭及一張信用卡。有關情況被麥當勞 L 的閉路電視拍攝下來。後來，警員在深水埗區看見被告人，發現被 M M 告人的外表與閉路電視錄像所顯示的男子相似，於是拘捕被告人。 N 所有失物無法尋回。辯方指被告人只是因一是貪念而干犯「拾遺不 N O 報」的罪行。裁判官指該案的被告人是看見銀包由事主褲袋掉出後 O 才拾起銀包，不接納是「拾遺不報」，反而是「順手牽羊」。原審 P P 裁判官以 3 個月作為量刑起點，扣除認罪折扣後，判處被告人 2 個 Q Q 月監禁。被告人不服判刑，提出上訴。原訟法庭指被告人並非有計 R 劃地利用別人的疏忽進行涉案的盜竊行為，屬「拾遺不報」。被告 R 人過往沒有定罪紀錄、坦白承認控罪，並已作出全數賠償。因此兩 S S 個月的即時監禁屬過分嚴苛。因此，原訟法庭判處上訴人上訴得 T T 直，改判監禁兩個月，緩刑 18 個月。 U U V V  -9- A A B B C 9. 大律師指本案的被告人是於回家途中在住所大廈走廊地 C 上拾獲控方第一證人的鎖匙包。他沒有可能預知控方第一證人會將 D D 鎖匙包遺留在屋外，而被告也不是有計劃地到處遊蕩，伺機行事。 E E 因此，本案的控罪 1 亦只屬「拾遺不報」，要求法庭判處非即時監 F 禁的刑罰。 F G G 控罪 2 至 4：以欺騙手段取得財產 H H I 10. 大律師指，本案雖然涉及三次交易，但三次交易的地點 I 是非常接近的便利店，時間相隔非常短，購買的物品也是相同，因 J J 此要求法庭視之為同一系列的行為。大律師續指，本案是一個簡單 K K 的操作，並非集團式經營，只牽涉一張信用卡，在十數分鐘內的三 L 宗小額交易，不牽涉轉售貨品，亦不牽涉違反誠信。而且被告人亦 L 有所節制，於第三宗交易後棄置信用卡，沒有直接對涉案信用卡構 M M 成任何進一步潛在風險。 N N O 11. 大律師承認，上訴法庭在一些案件中提及了這類案件的 O 嚴重性，並指出盜用信用卡案件判刑時的考慮因素與使用偽造信用 P P 卡相類似，但這並不代表於本案的情況下，法庭必須判處即時監 Q Q 禁。 R R 12. 大律師援引 HKSAR v Dhaliwal Jaspreet Kaur 及另一人 S S [2019] 5 HKLRD 428。該案中的事主將手袋放在酒吧，內有一張信用 T T 卡。事主未有看管而前往跳舞。兩名上訴人均稱在吧枱上發現事主 U U V V  - 10 - A A B B 的信用卡，用以購買飲品，並聲稱隨後棄置了該信用卡。事實上， C 第一上訴人在同日使用該信用卡支付酒店房房間的費用、餐廳賬 C 單、購買兩部電話及在一家數碼用品店舖支付 3,000 元。兩名上訴人 D D 認罪後，原審法官認為社會服務令並不恰當，因此沒有為第一上訴 E E 人索取報告。最後判處第一上訴人 23 個月監禁及賠償令，第二上訴 F 人 19 個月監禁及賠償令。兩名上訴人不服判刑，提出上訴。結果上 F 訴得直；因兩名上訴人已被監禁約 9 個月，上訴法庭下令立即釋放 G G 兩名上訴人。 H H I 13. 大律師指上訴法庭認為： I J J (1) 香港法庭對不當使用偽造或盜用信用卡案件的判 K K 刑 採 取 強 硬 的態 度 ， 而 這是 基 於 有力的 政 策 原 L 因； L M M (2) 在小規模、簡單的、只牽涉一張或數張偽造信用 N N 卡的犯罪操作，而沒有證據顯示與任何更大的犯 O 罪 操 作 有 聯 繫的 案 件 ， 雖然 法 庭 採納的 判 刑 方 O 向，是處以三年或以下的監禁，法庭避免作出更 P P 詳細的指引。上訴法庭引述 Loh Joe Hooi 指，在這 Q Q 類案件的判刑中，犯案的情節可以非常不同。法 R 庭須考慮一系列的情況，決定案件嚴重性，從而 R S 得出合適的量刑起點： S T T “… In this area of sentencing, the circumstances in which such an offence might be committed are myriad; from the U U V V  - 11 - A A B opportunistic use on one occasion of a single genuine B credit card belonging to someone who has mislaid it, in C order to procure goods of not great value, to the C syndicated manufacture and proliferation across the border of numerous forged credit cards with significant D losses to individuals and businesses. How a judge views D the criminality of a particular defendant so as to arrive at E an appropriate starting point depends on where, in that E range of circumstances, the case before him falls. There are a number of factors which bear on that determination, F which are set out in the authorities.” F G (3) 由於信用卡相關案件的犯案情節可以非常不同， G H 可是上訴法庭法官司徒敬於 HKSAR v Leung Pui H Shan 一案中指出法庭需要阻嚇信用卡相關案件， I I 法官亦隨即指出判刑是一門藝術，不應過分機械 J J 化： K K “14. But sentencing is an art which must carefully be L moulded not only to the category of offence but to the L offender. There is a danger of sentencing becoming over- mechanical with too little regard for unusual M M circumstances that might arise in relation to the commission of particular offences and too little regard to N circumstances peculiar to the offender. Experience N suggests that mitigation advanced sometimes takes the form of a mantra in our courts; with the courts being told O of the age, health circumstances and number of an O offender’s family members and of other matters which P have little to do whatsoever with what has led the P particular offender to the commission of the offence and what circumstances peculiar to the offender go in Q mitigation of sentence. There are certain offences – and Q these are well-known – in which personal circumstances and the circumstances leading to an offence will count R R much less than in others, because those offences demand, as a matter of public protection, deterrence as an S overwhelming consideration. That said, the S circumstances of this case provide an opportune moment in which to stress the need for individual justice having T T regard, of course, to the policy considerations that might dictate in a category of case a stern general approach but U U V V  - 12 - A A B never forgetting the fact that the courts are on each B sentencing occasion dealing with an individual whose C peculiar circumstances, if they exist, always deserve C careful attention. Consistency in sentencing is important but consistency does not dictate blindness to individual D circumstances of a case and to those of an offender. An D overly rigid pre-occupation with uniformity can be E inimical to individual justice.” E F 14. 大律師指出，上訴法庭認為原審法官應該為第二上訴人 F 索取感化報告及社會服務令報告。即使報告並不建議感化或社會服 G G 務令，合適的判刑亦應是緩刑。上訴法庭亦認為，基於第一上訴人 H H 犯案時不足 21 歲，因此原審法官應該為第一上訴人索取背景報告， I 並最少考慮適合社會服務令的可能性。 I J J 15. 大 律 師 亦 援 引 HKSAR v Leung Pui Shan CACC K K 317/2007。案發時該案的上訴人只有 19 歲，與男朋友感情出現問 L 題，在壓力下，盜取了兩名同事的信用卡購買名牌產品，假裝是由 L 其他男性朋友送贈，希望激起男友的妒忌心。她購買了一枚戒指、 M M 一個錢包、一些化妝品，並嘗試購買一部數碼相機。原審法官將上 N N 訴人判處教導所令。上訴法庭指出案件嚴重，但考慮到上訴人背景 O 及一系列的因素後，認為案件涉及不尋常的情況，索取感化官報 O P 告，並改判 18 個月的感化令。 P Q Q 16. 大律師指從以上的案例可見，雖然此類案件嚴重，但是 R 對於只涉及一張信用卡，短時間內數次購物，不涉及更大規模犯罪 R S 操作的案件，上訴法庭並無訂明任何嚴格的判刑指引。從上述案例 S 可見如考慮所有情況，犯罪情況屬於輕微，法庭並不一定需要判處 T T 即時監禁。 U U V V  - 13 - A A B B C 17. 本席完全不同意大律師的陳述。首先，大律師的說法與 C 被告人承認的案情撮要不脗合。根據案情撮要第 2 段，控方第一證 D D 人的鎖匙是插在其住所的匙孔內，而非掉在地上。更重要的是 朱光 E E 輝 的案情與本案的案情截然不同。雖然案例中的被盜物品包括信用 F 卡，但該案的被告人沒有使用該些信用卡。本案中，被告人盜竊控 F 方第一證人的鎖匙包後卻於短時間內，分別在 3 間不同的便利店使 G G 用控方第一證人的信用卡連環購物。 H H I 18. 上訴法庭已於多件案例中指出，這樣的情況不屬「拾遺 I 不報」： J J K K (1) Secretary for Justice v Lam Yuk Chi Louisdeana L (CAAR 4/2018) L M M 該案的被告人承認一項「盜竊」及 4 項「以欺騙手 N 段取得財產」。被告人拾獲事主鎖匙包後，於 1 小 N 時內用事主的信用卡購買兩部昂貴的手提電話， O O 及將其中一部手提電話以半價售予街上小販。被 P P 告人亦承認他購買涉案的物品後，將有關信用卡 Q 剪爛及扔進垃圾桶。原審時，辯方大律師指被告 Q 人因一時貪念而犯案，其犯罪手法不高明，且性 R R 質亦屬一般拾遺不報的個案。大律師強調被告人 S S 即時認罪，具相當悔意，亦願意作出賠償。被告 T 人身體亦出現多種健康問題，需定時覆診及接受 T U U V V  - 14 - A A B B 進一步治療。原審法官分別以監禁 9 個月、24 個 C 月、30 個月及 24 個月作為量刑基準。扣除認罪減 C 刑後判處被告人監禁 6 個月、16 個月、20 個月及 D D 16 個月。因所有控罪在短時間內發生，法官下令 E E 所有控罪的刑期同期執行，即總刑期為 20 個月監 F 禁但緩刑執行。律政司司長指判刑明顯不足及有 F 原則性錯誤，向上訴法庭提出刑期覆核。上訴法 G G 庭裁定覆核得直，指： H H I 「28. 本案絕非一般所謂 “拾遺不報” 的盜竊罪行。 I “拾遺不報” 是泛指拾取到他人的財物後，將財物據 J 為己有的盜竊罪行。答辯人是拾取到受害人的鎖匙 J 包，先處置部分財物後，再利用非法取得的信用卡 在極短時間內 4 次購買總值約 14,000 元的物品（即 K K 398 元、6,388 元、1,040 元及 6,457 元），包括兩部 iPhone 7。答辯人更在購買了兩部 iPhone 7 後不久便 L 將其中一部以低過一半價錢出售。答辯人的整體罪 L 行遠較一般的 “拾遺不報” 罪行嚴重。 M M 29. 但 本 庭同 意本 案 亦有 別於 一般 假 信用 卡 罪 行。本案不涉及製造或從不當渠道取得假信用卡 N N 後，利用該些假信用卡隨意購物。該類罪行，如不 被偵破，則犯案者極可能會不斷以假信用卡購物， O 導致有關財務機構面對具大的潛在經濟損失。本案 O 亦非犯案者有計劃及故意主動盜取他人信用卡，目 P 的是利用盜取而來的信用卡購物。本庭應指出申請 P 人在短時間內 4 次購物後便將涉案信用卡剪爛及扔 棄，故巨大潛在經濟損失的情況不會出現。… Q Q 35. 本庭重申本案的嚴重之處是答辯人盜取涉案 R 信用卡後便立刻利用信用卡 4 次購物… R S 36. 本庭同意林專員的立場，並認為本案並非是 S 一宗輕微的拾遺不報個案。雖然本庭同意答辯人提 出的求情理由，包括她的年齡、背景、她從未犯案 T T 及患有身體及精神問題等因素，是有力的求情因 U U V V  - 15 - A A B 素。但該些求情因素都並非是特殊至法庭應將刑期 B 緩刑執行。 C C 37. 即使以對答辯人最實際的處理方法，以本案 的控罪性質及犯案手法而言，原審法官處以的緩刑 D D 判刑是不恰當的。原審法官下令所有控罪的刑期全 部同期執行亦有值得商榷的地方。 E E 38. 本庭認為以本案的控罪性質及犯案手法，即 F 時監禁的判刑是無可避免的。考慮到上述求情理由 F 及本申請是刑期覆核申請，本庭認為適當的最終整 G 體判刑是即時監禁 15 個月。 G 39. 為了達到上述整體判刑，本庭將第二項、第 H 三項、第四項和第五項控罪的判刑全部改為 12 個 H 月，同期執行，但第一項控罪的 6 個月判刑中的三 I 個月要和其餘控罪的 12 個月判刑分期執行。答辯人 I 需服 15 個月的總刑期。」 J J (2) HKSAR v Dai Xiangfei（代向飛） [2019] HKCA 29 K K L 該案的被告人承認兩項「盜竊」（控罪 1 及 4）及 L M 兩項「以欺騙手段獲得財產」。案情指被告人拾 M 獲 事 主 遺 留 在一 間 店 舖 的桌 面 的 信用卡 （ 控 罪 N N 1）。約 10 分鐘後，被告人使用事主的信用卡購買 O O 價值 1,000 元的護膚品（控罪 2）。不久之後，被 P 告人再次使用事主的信用卡購買價值 730 元的香水 P （控罪 3）。閉路電視片段顯示被告人亦從店舖盜 Q Q 取一個名牌銀包（控罪 4）。同日，警方截停被告 R R 人，從其身上找到涉案的護膚品、香水及銀包， S 亦找到被告人利用事主信用卡購物的收據。原審 S 時，大律師指被告人因一時貪念而犯案。原審法 T T 官認為控罪 4 是普通店舖盜竊，以 9 個月監禁作為 U U V V  - 16 - A A B B 量刑基準，減刑後判處被告人 6 個月監禁。原審法 C 官認為控罪 1 （信用卡）只屬「拾遺不報」，因此 C 以 8 個月監禁作為量刑基準。就控罪 2 及 3，原審 D D 法官以 2 年 8 個月監禁作為量刑基準。四項控罪的 E E 部份刑期分期執行，總刑期為 30 個月監禁。被告 F 人 不 服 判 刑 ，提 出 上 訴 。上 訴 法 庭駁回 上 訴 ， F 指： G G H H “22. Although the applicant’s finding of the credit card may have been opportunistic, the courts have I consistently taken a serious view of credit card fraud, I whether by the use of forged credit cards or stolen credit cards: see HKSAR v Lee See Chung Stephen. Concurrent J starting points of 3 years’ imprisonment could not be J faulted in respect of Charges 2 and 3, which represented K “a small unsophisticated operation, involving only one or K a few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence materially linking the offender to a larger operation”. Yet L the judge in her discretion adopted starting points of 2 L years and 8 months’ imprisonment for both charges. The M applicant cannot realistically complain about such M starting points. N 23. Nor can the applicant complain about the starting N points adopted in respect of Charges 1 and 4, which were separate offences of theft; in particular Charge 4, which O O had nothing to do with credit card fraud. The claim to an opportunistic theft of the credit card and its subsequent P use by someone who might not otherwise have stolen P anything is somewhat undermined by the fact that the applicant had already embarked on her spree of Q dishonesty by shoplifting the red wallet before she came Q across PW1’s credit card.” R R (3) Secretary for Justice and Wong Che Ping（黃志平） S S [2020] HKCA 246 T T U U V V  - 17 - A A B B 該案的被告人承認 2 項「盜竊」（控罪 1 及 2）和 C 1 項管有他人身分證（控罪 4）。2018 年 7 月 25 C 日，該案的事主遺失了銀包，內載有一張八達通 D D 卡、一張附屬信用卡、身份證、車牌及 1,000 元現 E E 金。數間便利店的閉路電視片段顯示，事主父親 F （主卡持有人）報失前，被告人於短時間內，用 F 事主附屬信用卡分別 10 次購買香煙，總價值為 G G 4,484 元。因每項交易涉及的金額不大，被告人無 H H 須簽署作實。後來被告人被捕。警方在被告人身 I 上找到一包香煙。警誡下，被告人承認在街上拾 I J 獲事主的銀包，在一時貪念下，使用事主的信用 J 卡購買香煙。搜屋時，警方於被告人的住所找到 K K 事主的信用卡，72 包香煙及現金 300 元。另外， L L 警方亦搜獲一張屬於 GUPTA Dishank 的身分證及 M 信用卡。被告人承認拾獲 GUPTA Dishank 的身分 M 證及信用卡。原審法官指涉及以信用卡作欺詐的 N N 盜竊案件是嚴重控罪，就算只是簡單及小型的詐 O O 騙也可以 3 年監禁作為量刑基準。法官指該案的案 P 情極嚴重，被告人於事主遺失銀包後 2 個小時內連 P 環用被竊的信用卡購物。可是法官指被告人過往 Q Q 沒有刑事定罪紀錄，亦已被囚超過一個月。法官 R R 強調該案只屬「拾遺不報」，因此莫視感化官的 S 意見，判處被告人 200 小時社會服務令。律政司司 S T 長不服判刑，提出判刑覆核。上訴法庭裁定覆核 T 得直，指： U U V V  - 18 - A A B B “28. We agree that the respondent was not a recidivist C C but an opportunist who could not resist the temptation after picking up Mr Wong’s wallet and committed the D crime… However, frauds against shops with a stolen D credit card are extremely serious offences, of which the culpability should not be downplayed but instead, calls E for a deterrent sentence. The appropriate sentence for E such offences is immediate imprisonment for a F considerable [length]. In fact, the Court of Appeal has F dealt with many similar cases by way of immediate custodial sentences. G G 29. In Lam Yuk Chi Louisdeana…, the defendant H made four purchases including two expensive iPhones H with the credit card contained in the key pouch within an hour since she picked it up, and she resold one of the I iPhones at half price to a street vendor. The observation I made by the Court of Appeal when dealing with the application to review her sentence is also applicable to J J the present case: K “28. This case is by no means ‘theft by K finding’, which generally refers to thefts involving anyone who keeps the property that L they picked up. The respondent, after picking up L the victim’s key pouch, first disposed of some of M the properties, and then made four purchases M amounting to HK$14,000 with the credit card that she had illegally obtained within a very short N time, including two iPhone 7s, one of which was N resold below half price before long… O O 29. … The court should point out that there is no latent risk of a huge financial loss because the P applicant (sic) cut and discarded the credit card in P question after making four purchases within a short time.”… Q Q 35. Having considered the background of the case, R the circumstances of the respondent, and also the R submission he made to this Court, we are of the view that it is necessary to revise the said sentence since, no matter S in terms of individual charges or as a whole, the said S sentence departed greatly from the sentences imposed in T other similar cases, it was wrong in principle and T manifestly inadequate, and fell outside the range of U U V V  - 19 - A A B sentences which a judge, applying his mind to all the B relevant factors, could reasonably consider appropriate. C C 36. In our view, the starting points for the first and second counts of theft should be 9 months’ and 2 years’ D imprisonment respectively, and that for the fourth count, D i.e. possessing identity document relating to another E person, should be 12 months’ imprisonment. The E appropriate starting point for the three charges overall is 30 months…” F F 19. 因此，朱光輝 案根本完全不適用。 G G H H 20. 大 律 師也 承認 ， Dhaliwal Jaspreet Kaur 及 Leung Pui I Shan 案均涉及年輕罪犯。根據香港法例第 221 章《刑事訴訟程序條 I 例》第 109A 條，除非沒有其他適當的判刑選項，否則法庭不應判處 J J 一名年青罪犯監禁。於 Dhaliwal Jaspreet Kaur 案中，上訴法庭指 K K 出： L L “21. For many years, the courts in this jurisdiction have for M sound policy reasons taken a strong line in sentencing for the M illicit use of forged or stolen credit cards. In R v Kwan Ying Ho, credit card fraud was described by Litton JA (as he then was) as N N an insidious poison in the community. It affects a large number of citizens. It erodes the credit card system and damages Hong O Kong’s standing in the international community”. In HKSAR v O Leung Pui Shan, Stock JA (as he then was) described credit card offences as “a running scourge”, which were to be treated P P seriously and attract deterrent sentences. Q 22. Although the courts have adopted a common sentencing Q approach that for “a small unsophisticated operation, involving only one or a few forged cards uncomplicated by other evidence R materially linking the offender to a larger operation, … a starting R point of three years’ imprisonment or less would be appropriate”, S they have refrained from setting out more detailed guidelines for S the fraudulent use of credit cards. As the Court in HKSAR v Loh Joo Hooi explained… T T 24. … the case of A2. She had been in the Bar in question celebrating the birthday of A1’s mother, who also happened to U U V V  - 20 - A A B be her aunt. Given that both appellants had been celebrating for B several hours before the card was taken and used, it is not C difficult to accept, as was put on their behalf in mitigation, that C at the time Charges 1 and 2 were committed they were inebriated enough “to do something which they would not have done if they D were sober”. That was not, of course, a defence but it does help D to explain how a young woman of good character from a good E family came to commit such an offence. E 25. Her involvement was limited, on both her account and, F independently, that of A1, as well as on the facts averred by the F prosecution, to finding the credit card on a bar table and using it to purchase drinks to a value of $254. Her conduct came squarely G G within the lower range of culpability described in Loh Joo Hooi, namely “the opportunistic use on one occasion of a single H genuine credit card belonging to someone who has mislaid it, in H order to procure goods of not great value”. I 26. In our judgment, given the circumstances of A2’s I commission of Charges 1 and 2 and her plea, as well as her age, J character and family background, the judge should have called J for a Probation report and a Community Service Order (“CSO”) suitability report, the obtaining of which defence counsel had in K fact urged upon the judge. Had either of those alternatives been K found to be unsuitable, and the judge was nevertheless satisfied L that it was not appropriate to deal with her in any other way than L by a sentence of imprisonment, she should have considered whether a suspended sentence would have been appropriate.… M M 28. The same considerations do not apply to A1. Whilst she, like A2, may have been intoxicated and had her inhibitions N N lowered at the time the credit card was stolen and used to pay for $254 worth of drinks in the Bar, her subsequent actions leading O to the commission of Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6 cannot be seen in the O same light; in particular, the separate and distinct offences of using the credit card to pay for a meal and for two mobile P telephones at different shops in Sham Shui Po, Kowloon later P that day. The appellant, in addition to the value of the drinks in Q the Bar, used the credit card on four separate occasions to obtain Q goods or services worth $7,460. R 29. However, there was a significant matter of mitigation in R her case. She was, at the time of the commission of the offences, 19 years and 5 months old. By the time she came to be sentenced, S S she was just over 21 years of age. No mention was made by the judge of the terms of section 109A of the Criminal Procedure T Ordinance, Cap 221, although we note that no mention was made T of the section by defence counsel either. Yet, the appellant fell into the unusual category of a defendant who at the time of the U U V V  - 21 - A A B commission of the offence would have been entitled to be treated B as a ‘young offender’ between the age of 16 and 21, but by the C time of conviction and sentence was technically no longer a C ‘young offender’… D 30. In our judgment, notwithstanding the seriousness of the D offences, the judge should have called for background reports E and at least given consideration to the possibility of A1’s E suitability for a Community Service Order… F 31. If the judge had concluded, for sound reasons, on the F basis of the reports and her assessment of the facts and relevant authorities that there was no other method of dealing with A1 G G than by an immediate sentence of imprisonment, we would have accepted her position. However, we would still have expected H her to reflect the fact of A1’s age and obvious immaturity in H the quantum of sentence adopted. I 32. As to the appropriate quantum of sentence, we have I found two recent judgments of this Court particularly helpful in J identifying what would have been an appropriate starting point J for facts of this nature… K 33. In Secretary for Justice v Lam Yuk Louisdeana… K L 34. In substituting an immediate sentence of imprisonment L for the suspended sentence, the Court made clear that it had taken into account that the substitution had come about by way of an M Application for Review of sentence. Although it did not specify M what the sentence would have been had it not been an Application for Review, we think that the sentences adopted N N correspond to the approach of the Court in Li Chi Yat. However, in neither Li Chi Yat nor Lam Yuk Chi Louisdeana was there an O age factor. In the former case, the appellant was 29 years of age: O in the latter, the respondent was 58 years of age. P 35. In our particular case, had we come to the view that P despite her age, the appellant had to be sent to prison for these Q offences, we would nevertheless have reflected the factor of her Q age in the terms of imprisonment imposed. R 36. One should remember that an offender’s young age holds R out the hope of reform and rehabilitation, which can be easily undermined by a crushing sentence of imprisonment in an adult S S prison. The goal of ensuring that a young offender does not proceed down the path of crime can, for certain cases, be more T effectively achieved by the lighter touch of a more lenient and T compassionate sentence than by the heavier hand of a punitive and deterrent one. U U V V  - 22 - A A B B 37. We would have adopted a starting point of 9 months’ C imprisonment in respect of Charges 1 and 2 to reflect her age and C the obvious circumstances of intoxication at the time the offences were committed, and 18 months’ imprisonment in D respect of each of Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6 to reflect her age and D evident immaturity… We would have ordered the sentences on E Charges 1 and 2 to run concurrently with each other, and the E sentences on Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6 also to run concurrently with each other. We would then have ordered 3 months of the F sentence on Charges 1 and 2 to run consecutively to the 12 F months’ imprisonment on Charges 3, 4, 5 and 6, thus making 15 months’ imprisonment in all.” G G H 21. 上述案例中的兩名上訴人均為青年罪犯。顯然地，上訴 H 法庭裁定上訴得直的主要原因是兩名上訴人的年紀。上訴法庭指第 I I 二上訴人的參與程度極低，她只是使用被盜信用卡 1 次。因此原審 J J 法官應考慮判處緩刑。但第二上訴人之後分別使用被盜信用卡 4 K 次，因此情況有別；若原審法官考慮《刑事訴訟程序條例》第 109A K 條及傳閱報告後，認為唯一選項是即時監禁，上訴法庭並無異議。 L L M M 22. 另外，HKSAR v Leung Pui Shan 梁佩珊 CACC 317/2007 N 一案的被告人犯案時亦是 19 歲。因此法庭須考慮《刑事訴訟程序條 N 例》第 109A 條。 O O P P 23. 本案的被告人已 43 歲，並非年青罪犯，法庭無須考慮 Q 《刑事訴訟程序條例》第 109A 條。他於短時間內使用被盜信用卡 3 Q 次，情況與上述案例的第 2 上訴人不同，反而與第 1 上訴人的情況 R R 相若。 S S T 24. 辯方大律師援引的案例根本不適用於本案。 T U U V V  - 23 - A A B B 25. 雖然被告人最終丟棄被盜信用卡，但沒有證供顯示他有 C 剪爛信用卡，因此，沒有減低經濟損失的風險。 C D D 量刑 E E F 26. 縱觀本案的案情，本席裁定控罪 1 適當的量刑基準為 9 F 個月監禁。被告人於盜竊信用卡的短期內連環犯案，這並非減刑因 G G 素，反而是加重罪責。另外，被告人是於 KT 21/2023 一案的保䆁期 H H 間干犯本案，令情況更嚴重。控罪 2 適當的量刑基準為兩年半監 I 禁。 I J J 減刑因素 K K L 27. 被告人適時認罪，可獲三份一的扣減。因此各控罪的刑 L 期減為： M M N 控罪 1：6 個月監禁 N O 控罪 2 至 4：每項控罪 20 個月監禁。 O P P 28. 被告人指願意作出賠償。Sentencing in Hong Kong 11th Q edition 第 [30-345]，[30-347] 及 [30-349] 段指出： Q R R “[30-345] Voluntary restitution is something which “must be encouraged and that this can only be done if real weight is given S S to it as a factor mitigating sentence”: Secretary for Justice v Hui Siu-man [1999] 2 HKLRD 236, 242… But while it is an T important mitigating factor, it is “not sufficient to justify for (sic) T a suspension of sentence”: HKSAR v Sathak Abdul Kader Anees Rahman [2021] HKCU 4475… U U V V  - 24 - A A B B [39-347] The actual size of any discount for restitution “very C much depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case”: C HKSAR v Ma Kim-hung [2002] HKCU 573 (CACC 33/2002, 10 May 2002, unreported). If made after a guilty plea has been D entered, it will, as Stock JA noted in HKSAR v Wong Kam-tat D [2002] 2 HKC 677, 680, have materialized “at the very last E moment and, although it counts for something, it must be viewed E in that light”… F [30-349] … However, a court should avoid the impression that F it is striking a deal with the accused, or that he is being allowed to buy himself out of the consequences of his crime…” G G H 29. 事發已超過一年半，辯方亦稱不知道應向何人付款。只 H 可以將被告人的意願當作一個承諾，但這並非減刑因素。 I I J 30. 這些是嚴重控罪；眾所周知，被告人的背景、經濟困 J K 境、判刑對家人的影響和面對訴訟的壓力，均並非減刑因素。除了 K 認罪之外，沒有其他減刑因素。 L L M 總刑期 M N N 31. 本席必須考慮總刑期的原則。大律師指控罪 2 至 4 的時 O O 間、地點及購買的物品均相近，希望法庭將該 3 項控罪視作同一事 P 件。這並非適當的測試。 P Q Q 32. 於 HKSAR v Ngai Yiu Ching（倪耀偵） [2011] 6 HKC 238 R R 一案中，上訴法庭指： S S “18. It was in an attempt to safeguard fairness to the offender T by ensuring that he was not punished twice for the same conduct T that the courts developed the “one transaction” rule. In essence, U U V V  - 25 - A A B this rule said that if the number of offences have been charged B arising from the one transaction or course of criminal conduct, C then concurrent sentences should be imposed. C 19. The one transaction rule was not developed as an D inflexible rule of law. It was never intended as anything more D than a practical rule of thumb to guide judges in the exercise of E the power to impose consecutive sentences so that the final E sentence was not one that was unfair to an offender. F 20. However, once stated, this practical working rule tended F to develop a life of its own and has led to some difficulty in its application. Judicial dicta explained what was meant by “one G G course of criminal conduct” and exceptions to the rule developed … All of this, understandably enough, became H material for advocates who sought to argue that the multiple H offences of which their client had been convicted were part of one transaction and that it inevitably followed that the correct I sentence was one where all the sentences were concurrent. I J 21. There are several problems associated with this line of J reasoning. First it runs the risk of elevating a practical working rule to a rule of law, thereby providing an opportunity to argue K that departure from it inevitably meant that the sentence imposed K on the client was excessive. Secondly, it tends to obscure the real L point which is not whether two or more offences are committed L at about the same time, but whether the second or other further offences add to the culpability or criminality of the first. Thirdly, M it ignores the reality that whatever sentence is arrived at after M application of the rule is still subject to the totality principle … N N 23. The emphasis therefore should be on a reflection in the sentence of true culpability disclosed by the offences of which O the accused has been convicted. This is an approach which this O court has consistently adopted in recent times …. It is likely to be a more effective approach in reflecting an offender’s overall P culpability than one which becomes overly concerned with the P one transaction rule, although in the case of more than one Q offence, the court must guard carefully against punishing twice Q for the same act. If the second offence which takes place in the course of the suggested single episode adds to the culpability of R the first offence, it will normally follow that the sentence for the R second offence will run wholly or partially consecutive to that for the first; to what extent, if at all, will depend upon an S S assessment of the totality appropriate for the conduct as a whole. As with most sentencing exercises, the approach is an art, T sensitive to the individual circumstances of the case and the T offender.” U U V V  - 26 - A A B B 33. 本席於衡量量刑基準時已考慮被告人利用盜取的信用卡 C 於短時間內連環犯案。因此下令控罪 2 至 4 的刑期全部同期執行 C （即 20 個月監禁）。可是控罪 2 至 4 令控罪 1 的罪責更嚴重。本席 D D 下令控罪 1 的其中 3 個月與控罪 2 至 4 分期執行，即總刑期為 23 個 E E 月監禁。 F F G G H H I I （ 謝沈智慧 ） J 區域法院法官 J K K L L M M N N O O P P Q Q R R S S T T U U V V