案子原點....最該參考的參考資料(更新:港府部分聲明)

事情快告一段落了,但我覺得還是把資料普及一下比較好,很多事其實資料都有了,也定性了.準備是一件很重要的事,討論才不會陷入迴圈.不期望有回覆或討論,畢竟定性的東西不是本科生也很難看出問題.但加入這類議題討論前看一下有助於釐清問題看法. 最後注意,這不是政府發言,這是判決.

更新:部分議題的回應我覺得港府的聲明應該一併看,才不會落入單一視角的問題.對於台港的聲明衝突部分,我們不需要接受這份聲明的內容,但應該要更謹慎不要陷入單一說法.各人將內容補充於判決書後,僅供參考.

https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=121602&QS=%2B&TP=RS

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

_______________________________

Background

1. On 31 December 2018, the Accused pleaded guilty in the Eastern Magistrates’ Courts to 4 charges of “dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence”, in short, “money laundering” offence, contrary to sections 25(1) and (3) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455.

2. It is, however, to be noted that while the Accused pleaded guilty to all 4 charges on that occasion, he did not accept certain paragraphs of the summary of facts prepared by the prosecution. Therefore, when the case was committed to this court for sentence, there was an application by the prosecution for a Newton Hearing to determine those disputed matters. Parties estimated that the Newton Hearing would take about 5 days.

3. On 12 April 2019, having heard both parties’ submissions and having considered all the relevant matters, I ruled that there would not be a need to conduct any Newton Hearing since, in my view, the disputed matters would not have any potentially significant effect on the level of sentence to be imposed on the Accused. I shall come back to my reasoning on this when I later deal with the applicable sentencing considerations. Suffice for me to say the established principle is that if the disputes between the parties would not materially affect the sentence, then no Newton Hearing would be required.

4. Following my ruling and upon indication from the defence that they were ready to proceed with the case, the Accused’s earlier pleas tendered at the magistrates’ courts were confirmed and, with his admission of the amended summary of facts, he was formally convicted of all four charges of money laundering.

Facts Admitted

5. The amended summary prepared by the prosecution did not only cover the events of the money laundering charges but also the background facts leading to those offences.

6. Briefly, the Accused admitted that he and his girlfriend “Poon” met in July 2017. One month later, they became lovers with intimate relationship. In early December 2017, Poon was around 5 weeks pregnant.

7. In the morning of 8 February 2018, the Accused and Poon departed HK for Taiwan. The Accused was the one who paid for the air tickets and the hotel accommodation.

8. In the small hours of 17 February 2018, Poon’s mother received a WhatsApp message from Poon, saying that she would return to HK later that night. However, Poon then became out of touch. On 5 March 2018, Poon’s mother made a missing person report to the police. She had also found at her residence a copy of the Accused’s Taiwan Entry and Exit Permit.

9. As for the Accused, he returned from Taiwan to HK on the night of 17 February 2018. On 13 March 2018, he was interviewed by the police. In the course of the interview, the Accused admitted that he had killed Poon in Taiwan. Therefore, he was immediately arrested for the offence of murder and was cautioned.

10. Under caution, the Accused disclosed that he had buried the body of Poon at a piece of grassland in Taipei. The Accused also revealed further particulars during the subsequent video-recorded interviews, including his claim that he had an argument with Poon in the early hours of 17 February 2018 over how their luggage should be packed; as well as an assertion that they later had another argument during which Poon had told him that the baby belonged to her former boyfriend and that Poon had shown him a video capturing Poon and a male having sex.

11. According to the Accused, feeling agitated at the time, he hit Poon’s head against the wall and strangled her from behind with both hands. There followed a struggle with Poon on the floor for about 10 minutes until Poon was dead. The Accused then put Poon’s body into a suitcase and packed her personal belongings into four plastic bags.

12. The Accused, however, admitted that he had kept Poon’s HSBC ATM card; digital camera and iPhone. The following morning, the Accused first disposed of Poon’s belongings at different refuse collection points near the hotel. He then took the suitcase with Poon’s body and travelled by train to search for a place for disposal which he eventually did at a park.

13. Concerning Poon’s properties which he had taken away, the Accused admitted that he had used Poon’s ATM card to withdraw TWD 20,000 cash in Taipei with a view to buying some new clothes for himself. However, he did not do so eventually.

14. When the Accused returned to HK, he had brought with him the ATM card, the camera, the phone and the cash of TWD 20,000. These are the properties the Accused dealt with in respect of the first charge and their total value was about HK$13,500.

15. In respect of the 2nd to the 4th charges, they respectively concerned the Accused’s use of Poon’s ATM card to withdraw cash in HK. All three instances were captured by the relevant CCTV footages.

16. Individually, on 19 February 2018, the Accused withdrew HK$10,500. Out of this sum, he deposited HK$10,300 into his Bank of East Asia credit card account. This is the subject matter of the 2nd charge.

17. On 20 February 2018, the Accused withdrew HK$8,500 and he then deposited the same amount into his DBS credit card account. This is the subject matter of the 3rd charge.

18. On 21 February 2018, the Accused withdrew HK$200 from the bank by using Poon’s ATM card. This is the subject matter of the 4th charge.

The Accused’s Background and Mitigation

19. The Accused was born in the Mainland and is now aged 20. He has obtained an Associate degree from the Hong Kong Polytechnic University and was working part-time at the time of his arrest. Prior to the commission of these offences, the Accused had a clear record in Hong Kong.

20. Mr Ronny Leung for the Accused confirmed those particulars and emphasized that the Accused pleaded guilty at the committal stage and has been detained since March 2018. Other than these, Mr Leung did not put forth any particular mitigation on behalf of the Accused.

Sentencing Considerations

21. In setting out the relevant sentencing considerations, it is convenient to first explain why I did not consider a Newton Hearing to be necessary in this case.

22. As set out above, the charges which were laid against the Accused are all money laundering charges. It is to these money laundering charges that the Accused pleaded guilty. The mens rea required for the money laundering offence is “knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the properties dealt with represented the proceeds of an indictable offence”. The actus reus is the act of dealing.

23. There is no tariff for this type of offence because of the wide range of culpability involved. Therefore, although in the case of HKSAR v Hsu Yu Yi [2010] 5 HKLRD 545, the court had, using the amounts dealt with as a basis, tabularized a number of past cases to show the different sentences passed, I have to bear in mind that the amount laundered is but just one of the relevant factors to be taken into account in sentencing money laundering offences.

24. The Court of Appeal, in HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 2 HKLRD 33, identified at paragraph 40 of the judgment some of the significant features, although not an exhaustive list, for which the court should look and take into account in sentencing money laundering cases. They include the nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the penalty available for the predicate offence; any international dimension; the sophistication of the offence, including the degree of planning; whether there is one transaction or many and the length of time over which the offence was committed; whether the offender continues to launder funds after he has discovered as a fact that the funds are the proceeds of an offence or after he has discovered the nature of an offence which is serious; and whether a benefit has been received and if so, the nature and size of the benefit.

25. Therefore, if an offender was aware of the predicate offence which generated the proceeds or if there was a certain degree of planning involved, both are relevant factors to be taken into account in the sentencing exercise. Further, if the facts demand, and if the accused had full knowledge that the proceeds arose from a serious crime, a more severe sentence may be called for although the amount he dealt with was relatively small.

26. In this case, there is no dispute that the properties dealt with by the Accused were derived from his own criminal conduct. In the circumstances, it is helpful to reiterate what Stock VP, as he then was, said in the case of HKSAR v Chan Kim Chung, Nelson [2012] 2 HKLRD 263. In that case, the accused had been charged with both the offence of blackmail and that of money laundering in respect of the money he had obtained from the blackmail. The following were the observations made by the court:

“12. The problem raised by this ground of appeal stems from the fact that s. 25 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 455, is broadly drafted so that it is capable of including a wide range of conduct by the perpetrator of the predicate offence some of which is beyond what most people think of as money laundering. …

13. What most people understand as money laundering, however, is where the proceeds of crime are dealt with for a specific purpose, namely, to create distance between the crime and the profits it generates so that no link between the two can be detected. …This we shall refer to as a dealing with the proceeds for a money laundering purpose.

14. When money laundering in this sense takes place then it should be separately charged because it represents a course of criminal activity that is clearly additional to the criminal acts that make up the predicate offence. ...

15. …

16. …

17. These considerations lead naturally to the approach which a court should adopt in sentencing an offender who is guilty both of the predicate offence and a connected s. 25 offence. The question for the purpose of sentence of the s. 25 offence must always be whether its commission adds anything to the culpability disclosed by commission of the predicate offence. If it does, then that extra culpability must be reflected in the overall sentence imposed. If, however, the s. 25 offence adds nothing, then an effective additional sentence for the s. 25 offence should not be imposed, for doing so would in effect be to punish the offender twice the same conduct.

18. …

19. …where the s. 25 offence evidences no more than the mere obtaining of funds already reflected in the predicate offence, it is unlikely – unless the prosecutor is able to show otherwise – that additional culpability is demonstrated.”

27. In the present case, for charge 1, I trust the offence of money laundering, and not theft, was laid because the actus reus of the theft actually took place in Taiwan, not in HK. In respect of charges 2-4, it might be that money laundering was laid with theft as the alternative primarily because the prosecution took the view that the predicate offence was murder or manslaughter and therefore, by dealing with the deceased’s properties, the Accused had done something additional to the killing.

28. I mention this because the amended summary contained matters covering the killing, the theft and the money laundering. I therefore find it necessary to set out clearly whether I consider the money laundering charges to have disclosed any additional culpability on the part of the Accused on top of the predicate offence which I find, as I explain below, to have been one of theft and not murder or manslaughter.

29. In this respect, if one accepts that the predicate offence was theft, the facts clearly disclosed no more than the mere obtaining of properties from the offence of theft, and not anything additional.

30. This then brings us to the question of the predicate offence which generated the proceeds, the subject matters of the four charges in this case.

31. At the hearing on 12 April 2019, it was the prosecution’s primary contention that the predicate offence was murder or manslaughter but was that correct?

32. As Ms Claudia Ko for the prosecution acknowledged at that hearing, if there had just been the killing of Poon and that her belongings had been left untouched by the Accused, there could not have been any proceeds generated from the killing, nor any dealing with proceeds by the Accused.

33. On the other hand, if there had just been the taking away of the properties from Poon without the killing, then when the Accused arrived in HK with those properties, he would still have been liable to be charged with dealing with the proceeds generated by the theft.

34. Similarly, the cash withdrawn and dealt with by the Accused in HK all arose from the theft of Poon’s bank deposits.

35. It is therefore clear that the killing was not the predicate offence in this case but theft was. Without the theft, there was simply no basis to frame any money laundering charge against the Accused.

36. Ms Ko, in the end, accepted that it was the taking away of Poon’s properties and the withdrawal of money from her bank deposits, the conduct of theft, which generated the proceeds in question. She, however, submitted that the killing, irrespective of where it took place, formed the necessary backdrop to the money laundering charges and that the killing should be taken into account in this sentencing exercise.

37. I shall come back to this submission later. Suffice for me to say that if the prosecution had appreciated that the predicate offence was theft and not murder or manslaughter, it should have been clear that the disputed paragraphs did not add anything to the factual matrix of the money laundering offences because there was nothing in those disputed paragraphs which showed or tended to show that the Accused had planned the theft or had planned to lure Poon to Taiwan in order to take away her properties before his departure from HK.

38. If there was such material in those disputed paragraphs, it might be that the paragraphs would then be relevant to this sentencing exercise because, in such circumstances, it could be said that when the Accused dealt with the properties, he had the knowledge that such properties arose from a planned predicate offence of theft committed on a deceased person, not just an opportunistic theft.


39. Nonetheless, the above is academic in the present case because, as accepted by the prosecution, such a plan to steal was not the type of material covered in the disputed paragraphs.

40. It is for the above reasons that I came to the conclusion that no Newton Hearing would be necessary. In this connection, I note that in the original charge sheet, theft, and not any other offence, was pleaded as an alternative charge in respect of the 2nd to the 4th charge of money laundering. Therefore, it must have been the view of the prosecution that the offence of theft was relevant to and associated with the money laundering charges.

41. If this view had been anchored, and if it had been appreciated that the predicate offence was one of theft and not murder or manslaughter, I trust that the prosecution would not only have dropped its contention for a Newton Hearing but might also have considered it not necessary to bring the case to the Court of First Instance because, on the material available, the killing was quite separate from the thefts and it was the thefts which gave rise to the money laundering charges, not the killing.

42. That said, it is understandable that great frustration and a genuine sense of unfairness, to say the least, would be felt when an accused’s admission about killing someone outside this jurisdiction could not be a basis to bring a murder/manslaughter charge in HK. However, justice equally demands that an accused is to be sentenced on the basis of the offences with which he has been charged and of which he has been convicted, not on any other offences or matters, albeit matters which may disclose much greater criminality than the offences charged.

43. We should never lose sight of the fact that no matter how likely an accused has actually committed a most heinous crime, he is entitled to the full protection of his rights associated with a fair trial. If it were otherwise, it would mean short-circuiting our criminal procedure and this affects not only the accused, but also the integrity of our entire criminal justice system. These are fundamental principles which should always be borne in mind.

44. Now, other than the disputed paragraphs, there is full acceptance on the part of the defence that the Accused knew that the properties he dealt with were proceeds arising from the thefts he committed on the deceased whom, admittedly, he himself had killed.

45. This acknowledgment, in my view, fully answers Ms Ko’s point about the killing being the backdrop to the money laundering charges and this will, no doubt, be a factor which should be taken into account when considering if the Accused had any knowledge, at the time of the dealing, that the properties came from a serious offence.

46. In HKSAR v Zheng Liang Xin CACC 507/1996, 18 July 1997 (unreported), the Court of Appeal, when refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against his sentence of 2 years imposed after a guilty plea in respect of a theft charge involving a necklace, a bracelet, a ring and cash of about HK$3,400, which the Applicant committed after killing the deceased, pointed out that, “It is sufficient for us to state that ransacking a dead woman’s body for her possessions is a serious matter. We think that the sentence imposed by the judge was within the appropriate range. It was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.”

Sentencing in this Case

47. In the present case, the Accused was charged with money laundering and not theft but the above case illustrates that stealing from a deceased person whom an accused has killed is a serious offence. In other words, the predicate offence of which the Accused in this case was aware is a serious one.

48. This mental element, as pointed out in Boma, is an aggravating factor to be taken into account in the sentencing exercise.

49. Further, it is also not disputed that the Accused took the properties in charge 1 all the way back from Taiwan to Hong Kong. I therefore consider that there is an international element in his dealing although we are not talking about any international syndicate at work. Again, this is another aggravating factor.

50. As to the benefits the Accused received, according to the amended summary, he was the only one who benefitted from his dealings with the properties. The cash, the camera and the mobile phone were all recovered from the Accused’s residence.

51. Having considered all the relevant matters, including the Accused’s knowledge of the serious nature of the predicate offence; the international dimension involved, the benefit the Accused obtained; the value of the properties; and the period over which the dealing took place, I have come to the conclusion that a starting point of 39 months is appropriate for charge 1.

52. In respect of the remaining charges 2-4, although all concerned the withdrawals of money in HK by using Poon’s ATM card, it is to be noted that the card was obtained from a theft committed on the deceased and was brought all the way back from Taiwan to HK which then made the withdrawals possible. In addition, based on the facts admitted, the Accused was the only one who benefitted from these dealings as the money withdrawn was either deposited into his own credit card account or was for his own use. To recap, the money involved in charge 2 was HK$10,500; charge 3 was HK$8,500; and charge 4 was HK$200.

53. Thus, having considered all the relevant matters, including the Accused’s knowledge of the relevant background and the predicate offence; the benefit he obtained; and the amount of cash laundered, I take the view that a starting point of 2½ years is appropriate for charges 2 and 3. However, in view of the very small amount of cash dealt with in charge 4, I consider that a starting point of 1 year is appropriate.

54. The Accused pleaded guilty at the committal stage. I would grant him the full one-third reduction in sentence. Other than the plea, I do not consider the Accused’s clear record and his other personal background to be matters warranting any further reduction in this case.

55. Therefore, the sentences are as follows:

- for charge 1, 39 months reduced by 1/3 is 26 months’ imprisonment;

- for charges 2 and 3, 2½ years reduced by 1/3 is 20 months’ imprisonment; and

- for charge 4, 1 year reduced by 1/3 is 8 months’ imprisonment.

56. These four charges, as they are currently framed, are separate charges involving different properties and separate acts of dealing which took place at different times. In principle, wholly consecutive sentences could be imposed. However, having considered the totality principle and that all four charges could be said to have arisen from the same set of facts, I take the view that an overall sentence of 29 months should sufficiently reflect the Accused’s criminality in all these four charges.

57. To achieve this result, I order that 3 months of the term of 20 months imposed in respect of charge 2 are to run wholly consecutively to the 26 months for charge 1, the rest to run concurrently. In respect of the terms for charge 3 and 4, they are to run wholly concurrently with those imposed for charges 1 and 2, thus giving an overall term of 29 months.





(Anthea Pang)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court


Ms Claudia Ko, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Mr Ronny Leung, instructed by Messrs Yip, Tse & Tang, for the Accused: Chan Tong-kai

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
補充內容:

特區政府有關台灣殺人案的聲明
**************
  就台灣殺人案涉嫌人自首一事,特區政府今日(十月二十日)作出以下聲明:

(一)台灣殺人案的陳姓疑犯表示願出獄後到台灣自首,純粹出於自願。有指陳姓疑犯「被自首」,甚至涉及政治操作,指控完全失實。

(二)香港特區崇尚法治,警方打擊罪案不遺餘力,律政司在檢控方面嚴格把關。香港律政司已就陳案充分及全面地考慮了警方的調查及全部所得證據,並確認在香港只有足夠證據控告陳姓疑犯清洗黑錢罪,沒有足夠證據控告他其他罪行,包括企圖謀殺或所謂「蓄意計劃殺人罪」。香港執法、檢控、司法政治中立,完全按所得證據行事,對於無中生有,憑空捏造的說法,包括所謂的調查不足、漠視追訴其殺人罪行的情況、香港有司法管轄權而不應用等,我們表示深切遺憾。

(三)事實上,過去港方一直向台方明確表示,樂意提供合法可行的協助,以便台方調查台灣殺人案。港方早於去年三月主動派警務人員到台灣接觸當地刑事警察局人員,港方亦就案情及證據與台灣士林地方檢察署溝通。在去年六月至今年四月,港方直接向台方及透過港台經濟文化合作協進會、台港經濟文化合作策進會平台共發了四封信件,以交流案件進程及表示希望會面磋商。今年三月,我們更在協、策平台上向台方正式提出願意派代表團到台磋商處理殺人案的協作安排,但是沒有得到台方回覆。

(四)香港警方在去年三月拘捕陳同佳,經調查後發現只有充分證據控訴陳清洗黑錢罪。案件因而進入司法程序,所有相關證據一律不能在司法程序進行中與第三方包括台方互通。特區政府早在發給台方的信件中清楚說明這個情況。隨著陳姓疑犯自願自首,加上香港的司法程序已經結束,而陳姓疑犯不再上訴兼快出獄,我們已經向台方清楚表示樂意提供合法可行的協助。台方如在處理陳自首中提出有關證據的請求,港方會積極依法配合。

(五)特區政府一向尊重法治,依法辦事。特區政府早已表明,香港現時沒有法律容許將陳移送到台灣,也沒有法律與台進行刑事司法協作。陳今次是自願自首,台方應該按一般自願自首情況處理。

(六)台方早於去年十二月三日已就陳姓疑犯發出通緝令。通緝令現在仍然有效。全球對於通緝犯的通行做法,均是必須盡辦法將他早日緝捕歸案,偵查起訴,以彰顯法治及公義。特區政府也是基於此,即時致函清楚向台灣當局轉達了陳自首的意願,同時向台方表示,基於陳的請求,港方會協助陳作出相關安排,並樂意向台方提供一切所需的合法可行協助。特區政府希望台方務實及積極接收一位被其通緝和自願自首的人士。特區政府會在本港法律容許的基礎上向台提供所需協助。


2019年10月20日(星期日)
香港時間20時22分

https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/201910/20/P2019102000687.htm
2019-10-23 13:42 發佈
thron wrote:
事情快告一段落了,但...(恕刪)



謝謝專業的樓主。
在台灣,政府腐敗干預司法,黴體帶頭亂,閱讀這些文件才能釐清真相。
感謝分享判決書,看這個最準
這個案子在今年4月下旬就已經判決了
(Date of Sentence:29 April 2019)

就判決書這點

37. I shall come back to this submission later. Suffice for me to say that if the prosecution had appreciated that the predicate offence was theft and not murder or manslaughter, it should have been clear that the disputed paragraphs did not add anything to the factual matrix of the money laundering offences because there was nothing in those disputed paragraphs which showed or tended to show that the Accused had planned the theft or had planned to lure Poon to Taiwan in order to take away her properties before his departure from HK.


來看,香港法院沒有辦法連結到被告是在香港就預謀竊盜/洗錢,或是引誘被害人到台灣犯案的證據,

而且依據判決書其他內容
被告殺人(或誤殺,裡面有用到這個詞)並不是為了奪財
所以,依照香港純屬地主義沒有屬人主義來看
既然沒有預謀
所以殺人的部分跟香港境內全部兜不上阿...唯一兜的上的就是被告返港之後的提款啥的

那..咱們政府怎麼一口咬定被告在香港就預謀,所以香港依據屬地主義有管轄權的XD

好久沒看英文了,剛好練習一下,功力退步超多看得頭暈暈,如果有錯麻煩糾正一 下XD
Trombone8962 wrote:
感謝分享判決書,看這...(恕刪)


這些高官看不懂這些啦
這個政府、內閣,
根本就是一堆稻草人
望之儼然
一接近就全部穿幫了

 

菜英文的人總是教不會~~~


限制級
您即將進入之討論頁 需滿18歲 方可瀏覽。
根據「電腦網路內容分級處理辦法」修正條文第六條第三款規定,已於該限制級網頁,依台灣網站分級推廣基金會規定作標示。
評分
複製連結