分科四 商業罪案Sub-division IV Commercial Crime

分科四的主要工作是透過有效檢控詐騙、市場

失當行為、洗錢、貪污、版權及走私等罪行，

以確保香港能維持作為國際金融中心和廉潔社

會的地位及聲譽。2015年，本分科的主管為沈仲平博士。沈博士是國際公認的反貪專家，有

29年檢控經驗。分科轄下設有五組，各組由經驗豐富的首長級人員掌管，負責監督所屬範疇

案件的法律指引及檢控工作，即：(i)嚴重詐騙案件、(ii)證券、稅務及詐騙案件、(iii)廉政公署(公營機構 )案件、(iv)廉政公署 (私營機構 )案件，以及 (v)海關案件。分科內各組人員與本港的相關執法機關緊密合作，我們的主要職責是

就這些執法機關轉介的複雜及高度專門案件，

提供法律意見。本分科也致力與內地及世界各

地的相關機構保持緊密聯繫，從而了解各不同

地區在法律和判例方面的最新發展。下文是本

分科各組的工作簡介，以及分科律師在 2015年處理的值得注意的一些案件。

The main task of Sub-division IV is to maintain the status and reputation of Hong Kong as an international financial center and a corruption-free community through the effective prosecution of fraud, market misconduct, money laundering, corruption, copyright and smuggling offences. In 2015, the Sub-division was headed by Dr Alain Sham, an internationally recognized anti-corruption expert with 29 years’ prosecutorial experience. It comprises 5 sections, each headed by an experienced directorate officer overseeing the advice and prosecution of different areas of cases, namely: (i) Major Fraud; (ii) Securities, Revenue and Fraud; (iii) Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) (Public Sector); (iv) ICAC (Private Sector); and (v) Customs and Excise. Members of each section in the Sub-division work very closely with the respective law enforcement agencies in Hong Kong and our main duty is to provide legal advice on complex and highly specialized cases referred to by those agencies. We also maintain close liaison with the relevant authorities both in Mainland China and at the international level so as to keep ourselves abreast of the updated legal and jurisprudential developments. A description of the work of each section and a highlight of some notable cases handled by counsel of the Sub-division during 2015 are set out below.

56

分科四第 1 組 嚴重詐騙案件

本組由高級助理刑事檢控專員楊美琪女士掌管，

組員有五名檢控官，負責就嚴重詐騙案件向執

法機關提供適時和準確的法律指引，及在各級

法院檢控該等案件的審訊和上訴。

本組律師處理各種白領罪行，當中包括投資詐

騙、電郵詐騙、銀行詐騙、信用卡詐騙、盜用

公款、涉及國際層面的洗錢、虛擬貨幣和偽製

紙幣／外幣的詐騙。

本組在 2015 年於多宗重要案件提供法律指引，

詳情如下：

在香港特別行政區 訴 Annells Deborah ( 區院刑

事案件 2015 年第 148 號 ) 一案中，被告是香港

註冊的受託人公司的董事兼負責人，她在法院

使用一份虛假商業文件，作為支持她申請更改在

另一盜竊案中的保釋條件，她在該盜竊案被指

挪用了四名客戶共港幣 3,100 萬元的信託基金

( 高院刑事案件 2015 年第 80 號 )。被告也以同

一份虛假文件作洽商租約。她被控 (i) 作出導致

及意圖妨礙司法公正的作為罪；(ii) 企圖欺詐罪；

以及 (iii) 管有虛假文書罪。被告經審訊後被裁定

全部控罪罪名成立，判處監禁四年。另一方面，

在高院刑事案件 2015 年第 80 號中，被告承認 (i) 45 項盜竊；(ii) 管有虛假文書；以及 (iii) 詐騙

的控罪，被裁定罪名成立，判處監禁共九年及

取消擔任公司董事或相近職務的資格 15 年。

在香港特別行政區 訴 章露峯及另五人 ( 區院刑

事案件 2015 年第 333 及 335 號 )( 合併 ) 一案中，

一個由台灣人和持雙程證內地人組成的犯罪集

團被控操控香港的替身戶口持有人，處理以電

Section IV(1) Major Fraud

The Section is headed by Ms Maggie Yang, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions with the strength of 5 other prosecutors, who provide timely and accurate legal advice to law enforcement agencies on major fraud cases. They also conduct related trials and appeals at all levels of the Courts.

Counsel in the Section handle a wide range of white-collar crimes which include, amongst others, investment fraud, email fraud, bank fraud, credit card fraud, embezzlement of funds, money laundering with international dimension, fraud with virtual currencies and counterfeit notes/currencies.

The Section advised on a number of significant cases in 2015 with details as follows:

In HKSAR v Annells Deborah DCCC 148/2015, the defendant, being the director and person in charge of a Hong Kong registered trustee company, used a false business document in Court in support of her application to vary her bail conditions in another theft case which alleged that she had misappropriated the trust funds of 4 clients totaling HK$31 million (HCCC 80/2015). The same false document had been used by the defendant to negotiate for a tenancy agreement. She was charged of (i) doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice; (ii) attempted fraud; and (iii) possessing a false instrument. After trial, the defendant was convicted of all charges. A 4 years’ imprisonment term was imposed on her. On the other hand, in HCCC 80/2015, the defendant was convicted upon her own plea of (i) 45 counts of theft; (ii) possessing a false instrument; and (iii) fraud. She was sentenced to a total term of 9 years’ imprisonment and was disqualified from acting as a director or in a similar capacity for 15 years.

In HKSAR v Chang Lufeng and 5 Others DCCC 333 and 335/2015 (consolidated), a syndicate of Taiwanese and Mainland two-way permit holders were charged with controlling stooge account holders in Hong 話騙取多名居於台灣的受害人金錢的犯罪得益。

分科四第 1 組 ― 嚴重詐騙案件Section IV(1) – Major Fraud

分科

四 商

業罪

案Su

b-di

visi

on IV

Com

mer

cial

Crim

e

57

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

其中一名被告從多家銀行提取大額港幣，把現

金放進紙袋，然後在餐廳交給另一名被告。整

個過程被警方監視，而鈔票也預先塗上化學劑

以便追蹤辨認。警方在其中一名被告到找換店

匯出犯罪得益的現金時展開拘捕行動。各被告

分別被控洗錢罪，涉及金額共約港幣 250 萬元。

基於案件牽涉國際層面，法院表示各被告均擔

當重要角色，其行為令當局難以找出騙案主謀。

法院考慮到各被告認罪，判處他們監禁 16 至

24 個月不等。

在 香 港 特 別 行 政 區 訴 Shamsudeen SyedAhmed ( 區院刑事案件 2013 年第 947 號 ) 一案

中，被告被控清洗存入他兩個商業銀行帳戶內

的 500,000 美元，有關款項是海外投資詐騙的

犯罪得益，法院裁定他罪名成立。被告在抗辯

時聲稱，該 500,000 美元是他出售父親送給他

作為結婚禮物的兩顆八卡鑽石的收益。2011年，

他生意上出現現金周轉不靈，經馬來西亞一名

“中間人”安排，他把該兩顆鑽石賣給一名身

分不詳的澳洲買家。為了支持這說法，他傳召

了六名證人，包括案中居於吉隆坡的馬來西亞

“中間人”，但該人拒絕到香港作供。為向該

人取證，被告申請發出請求書。吉隆坡的馬來

西亞高等法院按照請求，在 2015 年 3 月進行聆

訊，訊問該名“中間人”。香港的控辯雙方律

師也出席上述海外聆訊，但礙於香港的訟辯人

在馬來西亞法院並無出庭發言權，雙方在該聆

訊中均由各自的馬來西亞律師代表。這是首宗

辯方藉請求書取得證據的案件。法院在審訊後

裁定被告全部控罪罪名成立，判處監禁共 41 個

月。法院也命令被告要向控方支付在馬來西亞

進行聆訊所招致的港幣 50,000 元額外費用。

在香港特別行政區 訴 尹漢雄及另三人 ( 區院刑

事案件 2013 年第 722 號 ) 一案中，各被告是已

故尹先生的家人。在尹先生因突發性心臟停頓

死後數小時，各被告利用電話理財服務轉移尹

先生銀行帳戶內的結餘額港幣 1,600 萬元，然

後開出九張支票，抬頭人大多為各被告，從中

取走整筆款項。各被告在抗辯時否認有不誠實

意圖盜取遺產，被告等聲稱死者篤信“風水”，

他們只是按其遺願和安排行事。被告說已故的

尹先生預見自己大限將至，他的遺願是各被告

在他死後處理好他所有銀行存款，並指明要分

九張支票處理。法院不接納此說法，在審訊後

裁定各被告串謀偷竊罪罪名成立，判處監禁 26個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 彭思慧 ( 刑事上訴 2014年第 329 號 ) 一案中，被告為尋找投資機會，

向財務代理人展示多份虛假銀行文件，包括資

金證明書及結餘證明書，目的是顯示自己在香

港的銀行帳戶存有共 518 億美元。調查後發現，

被告管有另外 13 份類似的虛假文書。經審訊後，

被告被裁定企圖使用虛假文書及管有虛假文書

Kong to deal with crime proceeds derived from telephone deception practised on various victim residents in Taiwan. One of the defendants withdrew large amounts of Hong Kong dollars from banks, stored the cash in a paper bag and handed it to another defendant in a restaurant. Whilst the process was under police surveillance, the cash was also marked in advance with chemicals for tracing and identification. The arrest took place when one of the defendants attended a money exchanger to remit the crime proceeds. The defendants were charged with separate counts of money laundering for a total sum of around HK$2.5 million. Considering the international dimension of the case, the Court stated that the defendants’ roles were significant and their

acts made it difficult for the masterminds of the scam to be found. The defendants were sentenced to imprisonment ranging from 16 to 24 months after the Court took into account their guilty pleas.

In HKSAR v Shamsudeen Syed Ahmed DCCC 947/2013, the defendant was charged with and convicted of laundering US$500,000, being the proceeds of overseas investment fraud, that were deposited into two of his business bank accounts. In his defence, the defendant claimed that the said US$500,000 were the sale proceeds of two 8-carat diamonds that were given to him by his father as wedding gifts. In 2011, he sold both diamonds to an unknown Australian buyer through the arrangement of a “middleman” in Malaysia when his business encountered a cash-flow problem. To support his claim, he called 6 defence witnesses, including the Malaysian “middleman” who resided in Kuala Lumpur but had refused to testify in Hong Kong. In order to obtain his evidence, the defendant applied for a Letter of Request. In pursuance of which, a hearing was held in March 2015 before the High Court of Malaya at Kuala Lumpur for the said “middleman” to be examined. Prosecuting counsel and defence lawyers from Hong Kong attended the said overseas hearing but as Hong Kong advocates have no right of audience before the Malaysian Court, both sides were represented by their respective Malaysian lawyers at the said hearing. This was the first case in which defence evidence was obtained on the strength of a Letter of Request. The defendant was convicted of all charges after trial and sentenced to a total of 41 months’ imprisonment. He was also ordered to pay HK$50,000 to the Prosecution, being additional costs incurred for the hearing held in Malaysia.

In HKSAR v Wan Hon-hung, Johnny and 3 Others DCCC 722/2013, the defendants were family members of the late Mr Wan who died from sudden cardiac arrest. Within hours of Mr Wan’s death, the defendants transferred the remaining balance of HK$16 million in Mr Wan’s bank account via phone-banking, and thereafter dissipated the entire sum under 9 cheques mostly issued to themselves. In their defence, the defendants denied any dishonest intent to steal the estate, claiming that they had done so according to the late wish cum arrangement of Mr Wan who used to be a keen believer in Chinese “Fung Shui”. It was said that as the late Mr Wan had foreseen his death, it was his will that the defendants should take care of all his bank savings upon his death and have the same disposed of under 9 cheques in specific. Such assertions were rejected and the defendants were convicted of conspiracy to steal after trial and sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment.

In HKSAR v Pang Sze-wai, Teresa CACC 329/2014, for the purposes of exploring investment opportunities, the defendant presented to a

58

罪罪名成立，判處監禁三年。被告就定罪申請

上訴許可，其後遭上訴法庭駁回。

本組律師不時為警方舉辦研討會、工作坊和經

驗分享會，協助執法機關掌握現時商業罪案法

律的最新發展。

分科四第 2 組 證券、稅務及詐騙案件

分科四第 2 組負責就涉及市場失當行為及稅務

罪案的案件，分別向證券及期貨事務監察委員會

(“證監會”) 和稅務局提供法律指引，並聯同分

科四第 1 組就商業詐騙和洗錢案件向香港警務

處商業罪案調查科提供法律指引，又在可行情

況下就相關案件的審訊和上訴出庭檢控。此外，

本組也就建議法例修訂和新法例的刑事事項，

向財經事務及庫務局提供法律指引。2015 年，

這個範疇的工作涉及證券法和《稅務條例》。

與本科其他組別一樣，分科四第 2 組的檢控官

會在本科稱為 FAST 的快速法律指引制度下提供

法律指引。

2015 年，本組由高級助理刑事檢控專員林穎茜

女士掌管，共有六名檢控官。下文闡述本組在

2015 年處理的一些案件。

2015 年，本組在區域法院提出首宗檢控有關

《證券及期貨條例》( 第 571 章 ) 第 114 條所

訂的罪行。在香港特別行政區 訴 IPFUND Asset Management Limited ( 第一被告 ) 及冼仲彥 ( 第

二被告 ) ( 區院刑事案件 2015 年第 23 號 ) 一案

中，兩名被告各被控在未獲發牌照的情況下經

營某類受規管活動的業務，即證券交易；以及

被控顯示經營某類受規管活動的業務的交替控

罪。根據該條例，“證券”包括在集體投資計

劃中的權益，但不包括私人公司的股份 ( 私人公

司股份的豁除 )。案情指兩名被告在從未獲證監

會發牌的情況下，在 2011 年 2 月至 12 月期間，

向投資者提出要約和處置 16 項集體投資計劃中

的權益。這些計劃涉及把從投資者匯集所得的

資金用作購買香港的商用物業，並由純粹為購

入該等物業而成立的私人公司持有。在出售有

關物業後，部分所得利潤會按各投資者的資金

佔物業購入價的比例分發給他們。各被告負責

管理和操控有關計劃。第一被告按利潤收取顧

問費，而第二被告在所有關鍵時間都是第一被

告的唯一董事兼股東。鑑於案情複雜、所涉證

人眾多，以及預計審訊時間較長，案件在區域

法院審理。各被告否認全部控罪，審訊在 2015年 11 月展開，歷時 20 日。法院最終裁定，該

等計劃實際上是一項集體投資計劃，而各被告

在其中的角色確實等同經營業務。不過，法院

裁定，由於各投資者所購買的都是擁有相關物

業的私人公司的股份，該等計劃屬於私人公司

financial agent various false bank documents, including the Proof of Funds and Certificate of Balance, purported to show that the defendant had a total of US$51.8 billion in her bank account in Hong Kong. Upon investigation, it was found that the defendant was in possession of another 13 similar false instruments. After trial, the defendant was convicted of attempting to use false instruments and possession of false instruments and was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment. The defendant’s application for leave to appeal against conviction was subsequently dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

In keeping the law enforcement agencies abreast of the current development of the law on commercial crime, Counsel of the Section conduct seminars, workshops and experience sharing with the Police from time to time.

Section IV(2) Securities, Revenue and Fraud

Section IV(2) advises the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) on market misconduct cases, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) on revenue crimes, and together with Section IV(1), the Commercial Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police (CCB) on commercial fraud and money laundering cases. It also prosecutes, where appropriate, the related trials and appeals. The Section also advises the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau on criminal matters in its proposed legislative amendments and proposed new legislation. In 2015, this area of work concerned the securities law and the Inland Revenue Ordinance. As with the rest of the Division, Section IV(2) also provides legal advice under the Division’s FAST system.

In 2015, the Section comprised 6 prosecutors and was led by Ms Vinci Lam, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions. Below are some of the cases the Section handled in 2015.

In 2015, the Section instituted the first prosecution for an offence under section 114 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (Cap. 571) in the District Court. In HKSAR v IPFUND Asset Management Limited (D1) and Sin Chung Yin, Ronald (D2) DCCC 23/2015, each of the defendants was charged with carrying on a business in a regulated activity, namely dealing in securities, without a licence and with the alternative charge of holding out as such. Under the said Ordinance, “securities” includes interests in any collective investment scheme but does not include shares of a company that is a private company (private company shares exclusion). It was alleged that between February and December 2011, the defendants, who had never been licensed by the SFC, offered and disposed of interests in 16 collective investment schemes to investors. The schemes involved the investors’ funds being pooled for use in purchasing commercial properties in Hong Kong which were held by private companies set up solely for that purpose. Upon the sale of those properties, part of the profits earned would be distributed among the investors in proportion to their contributions towards the purchase price. The defendants managed and controlled the schemes. D1 received consultancy fees based on the profits and D2 was at all material times the sole director and shareholder of D1. The case was tried in the District Court in light of its complexity, the number of witnesses involved

分科

四 商

業罪

案Su

b-di

visi

on IV

Com

mer

cial

Crim

e

59

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

股份的豁除範圍，故此並非本條例所指的證券。

因此，法院裁定各被告全部罪名不成立。控方

質疑私人公司股份的豁除是否適用於集體投資

計劃，現正以案件呈述方式提出上訴。

《稅務條例》( 第 112 章 ) 訂出規管性罪行及逃

稅罪行。逃稅罪行較為嚴重，通常由組內人員

出庭檢控。這些罪行的一般刑罰是即時監禁，

而除了判處罰款外，該條例也容許另加可高達

未徵稅款三倍的罰款。2015 年，本組繼續處理

逃稅案件，包括涉及被告在報稅表中申請從應

評稅款中作出有關扣除的虛假陳述，以蓄意及

意圖逃稅的案件。

在香港特別行政區 訴 許靜敏 ( 觀塘裁判法院傳

票案件 2015 年第 8768 至 8774 號 ) 和香港特

別行政區 訴 洪浩泰 ( 觀塘裁判法院傳票案件

2015 年第 8775 至 8783 號 ) 兩案中，涉案夫婦

分別在七個和九個課稅年度，在報稅表上虛報

個人進修開支，藉此逃稅。許靜敏聲稱支付了

共港幣 251,600 元的個人進修開支，由此減少

應徵稅款港幣 42,456 元；洪浩泰則聲稱支付了

共港幣 440,000 元，減少應徵稅款港幣 78,407元。在洪浩泰的案中，他在全部九個課稅年度

申請扣除的金額，都是納稅人根據法例可申請

扣除的最高金額。二人均未能按稅務局要求提

供任何證據以證明有關開支屬實。因此，稅務

局局長進行補加評稅，他們須支付少徵的稅款。

然而，在許靜敏案中少徵的其中港幣 6,800 元

稅款，則因法律理由而未能藉補加評稅追討。

其後，本組決定分別向二人發出七張和九張傳

票，控告他們就申請扣除個人進修開支方面作

出虛假陳述，以蓄意及意圖逃稅。他們承認控

罪，各就所控傳票被判處監禁兩個月，緩刑三

年，並就每張傳票判處罰款港幣 10,000 元。此

外，許靜敏被着令支付未能藉補加評稅追討的

少徵稅款港幣 6,800 元。

控方認為判處緩刑是原則上犯錯，刑罰也明顯

過輕，兩名被告理應判處即時監禁、罰款及另

加罰款，因而以此論據申請覆核刑罰，獲法庭

批准。法庭修訂洪浩泰的刑罰，就所有傳票判處

and the estimated length of trial. The defendants pleaded not guilty to all charges and the trial commenced in November 2015. After a 20-day trial, the Court ruled that the schemes were indeed collective investment schemes and that the defendants’ roles therein did amount to carrying on a business. However, the Court ruled that since what the investors purchased were the shares of private companies that owned the properties, the schemes fell within the private company shares exclusion and hence not securities for the purposes of the Ordinance. As a result, the Court acquitted the defendants of all charges. An appeal by way of case stated which challenges the application of the private company shares exclusion in the context of collective investment schemes is underway.

There are regulatory and tax evasion offences under the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112). Tax evasion offences are more serious and are usually prosecuted in-house by members of the Section. These offences should normally attract immediate custodial sentence, and in addition to a fine, the Ordinance allows the imposition of a further fine of up to treble the amount of tax which has been undercharged. In 2015, the Section continued to handle cases of tax evasion, including those where the defendant wilfully with intent to evade tax made a false statement in tax return in connection with claim for deduction.

In HKSAR v Koh Chin-meng KTS 8768-8774/2015 and HKSAR v Hung Ho-tai Andrew KTS 8775-8783/2015, the married couple evaded tax by making false claims of self-education expenses in their tax returns for respectively 7 and 9 years of assessment. Koh claimed that she had spent a total of HK$251,600 for self-education which resulted in HK$42,456 of tax being undercharged. For Hung, he claimed to have spent a total of HK$440,000 and the amount of tax undercharged was HK$78,407. In Hung’s case, the amount he claimed for each of all 9 years was the maximum amount that a taxpayer could claim under the law. Upon request by the IRD, neither of them could provide any justified proof of such expenses. As a result, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue made an additional assessment and they had to pay the amounts of tax undercharged. However, HK$6,800 of the tax undercharged in Koh’s case could not be so demanded for legal reasons. Subsequently, the Section advised to prosecute them for 7 and 9 summonses respectively for wilfully with intent to evade tax, making false statement in connection with a claim for deduction of self-education expenses. They pleaded guilty and were each sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years for all summonses and fined HK$10,000 for each summons. In addition, Koh was ordered to pay the HK$6,800 of tax undercharged which could not be demanded through additional assessment.

Arguing that the suspended sentences were wrong in principle and manifestly inadequate and that a term of immediate custodial sentence, a fine and a further fine should be imposed for both defendants instead, the Prosecution applied to review the sentences. The Court granted the application. Hung’s sentence was revised to 2 months’ immediate custodial sentence for all summonses, the fine of HK$10,000 per summons remained but a further fine of HK$78,407 equivalent to the amount of tax undercharged in his case was additionally imposed. Koh’s sentence was increased to 4 months’ imprisonment suspended for 3 years for all summonses, a fine of HK$10,000 per summons and a

60

分科四第 2 組 ― 證券、稅務及詐騙案件Section IV(2) – Securities, Revenue and Fraud

分科四第 3 組 ― 廉政公署 ( 公營機構 ) 案件Section IV(3) – ICAC (Public Sector)

分科

四 商

業罪

案Su

b-di

visi

on IV

Com

mer

cial

Crim

e

他即時監禁兩個月，每張傳票罰款港幣 10,000元則維持不變，但另加罰款港幣 78,407 元，相

等於案中少徵稅款的金額。許靜敏的刑罰也增

加至就所有傳票監禁四個月，緩刑三年，每張

傳票罰款港幣 10,000 元，以及另加罰款港幣

49,256 元。鑑於夫婦二人若同時被判處即時入

獄，家中女兒便會乏人照顧，因此許靜敏獲判

緩刑。洪浩泰其後就判刑提出的上訴遭法庭駁

回。

2015 年，本組亦就詐騙和洗錢案件向商業罪案

調查科提供法律指引。香港特別行政區 訴 李美

卿及另一人 ( 區院刑事案件 2015 年第 584 號 )一案，是首宗開立證券戶口 ( 而非銀行戶口 ) 借

給他人洗錢的案件。兩名被告同意向同案串謀

人李承惠 (“李氏”) 提供預先簽署的空白支票，

讓他利用以兩名被告名字開立但實際由自己操

控的證券戶口買入股票。兩名被告完全知悉那

些支票會因存款不足而不能兌現。支票存入證

券戶口後，即使戶口的資金尚未可用，也會發

出並執行買盤指令。支票遭退票時，任何買入

的股票會出售。如有利潤 ( 顯然是無本生利 )，便會提取；如有虧損，則無法找到被告。本組

決定作出檢控，兩名被告分別被控與李氏串謀

處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益

的財產，即被告作為證券戶口持有人的股票和

被拖欠的債項。兩名被告經審訊後被裁定罪名

成立，分別被判處監禁 33 個月和 32 個月。

2015 年，本組繼續與相關機構分享打擊商業罪

案和市場失當行為罪行的經驗。在六月，高級

檢控官蕭啓業先生在警務處舉辦的偵緝訓練課

程中主持模擬法庭審訊。他在九月接待到訪的

中國證券監督管理委員會人員，向他們講解香

港法律制度和市場失當行為罪行的檢控工作。

同年十一月，他在商業罪案調查課程中向商業

罪案調查科人員講課，課題為“香港警務處與

律政司在檢控詐騙罪行方面的合作”。

further fine of HK$49,256. Koh’s term of imprisonment was suspended due to the consideration that the couple’s daughters would be left without parental care if both Koh and Hung had to serve an immediate custodial sentence. Subsequently, Hung’s appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The Section also advised the CCB on fraud and money laundering cases in 2015. HKSAR v Lee Mei-hing Randa and Anor DCCC 584/2015 was the first case of money laundering in which securities accounts (as opposed to bank accounts) were opened and lent to others. Both defendants agreed to provide a named co-conspirator, Stephen Lee (“Lee”), with pre-signed blank cheques for Lee to purchase stock using securities accounts opened in the defendants’ names but were under Lee’s control. The defendants had full knowledge that the cheques would be dishonored due to insufficient funds. When the cheques were deposited into the securities accounts, buy orders would be placed and executed notwithstanding that the fund was not yet available. When the cheques became dishonored, the shares purchased, if any, would be sold. Where a profit was made, obviously at no cost at all, it would be withdrawn. Where a loss was occasioned, the defendants could not be reached. Upon advice, the defendants were each charged with conspiring with Lee to deal with property, namely the shares and debts owed to the defendants as the securities account holders, known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. Both defendants were convicted after trial and were sentenced to 33 and 32 months’ imprisonment respectively.

In 2015, the Section continued to share its experience in the combat of commercial crime and market misconduct offences. In June, Mr William Siu, Senior Public Prosecutor, presided over the mock trial in the Police’s Criminal Investigation Course. In September, he gave a briefing to visiting officials of the China Securities Regulatory Commission on Hong Kong’s legal system and the prosecution of market misconduct offences. In November, he gave a seminar on “Cooperation between the Hong Kong Police Force and the Department of Justice in Fraud Prosecution” to CCB officers in the Commercial Crime Investigation Course.

61

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

分科四第 3 組 廉政公署 ( 公營機構 ) 案件

廉政公署 ( 公營機構 ) 案件組是一個專責組別，

負責就涉及政府部門和公營機構的貪污案件，

以及投訴選舉期間的舞弊和非法行為的選舉案

件，向廉政公署提供法律指引。自 2015 年 2 月，

本組由高級助理刑事檢控專員李鏡鏞先生掌管，

成員不多，只有三名高級檢控官和一名檢控官。

年內，本組律師努力不懈，就廉政公署轉介的

152 宗貪污案件和 68 宗選舉案件提供法律指

引。這些指引涵蓋多類法律範疇︰包括相關案

件是否適合援引《防止賄賂條例》( 第 201 章 )第 III 部訂明的特別調查權力、就可能放有受保

密權涵蓋的材料的處所向法院申請搜查令、案

中證據是否充分及案件在那一級別的法庭審訊。

儘管提供法律指引的工作量非常繁重，組內律

師也盡可能在一些由他們提供法律指引的較複

雜和敏感案件，在審訊和上訴聆訊中出庭檢控。

年內，本組採用了新工作措施處理選舉案件。

法律政策科轄下政制發展及選舉組律師負責從

政制及法律政策的角度，就選舉事務提供意見。

我們借助他們的專門知識，並聯同他們、和廉

政公署首長級人員及相關組的專門調查主任舉

行會議，研究在執行《選舉 ( 舞弊及非法行為 )條例》( 第 554 章 )(《選舉條例》) 牽涉的種種

法律問題。其中一次會議更邀得選舉事務處及

廉政公署社區關係處人員出席，共同探討有關

法律問題。在會上大家就《選舉條例》中若干

條文的不同詮釋發表意見和討論，而調查人員

則根據執行有關法例的工作經驗，提供寶貴意

見。

這些會議為相關持份者提供一個有用的平台，

令各持份者能一同商討在執行《選舉 ( 舞弊及非

法行為 ) 條例》的法律問題並且制訂策略，以確

保香港的公共選舉能以公平公正的方式進行。

2015 年 10 月 23 日，李鏡鏞先生與法律政策科

署理副首席政府律師鄭大雅女士按會議達成的

結論，就《選舉 ( 舞弊及非法行為 ) 條例》不同

條文涉及的法律問題，為廉政公署人員開辦聯

合培訓研討會。

另一項新措施是本組的法律指引職責範圍擴大

至接收經警方處理的所有輕微選舉罪行案件。

這些案件以往由裁判法院法律指引 ( 一般檢控 )組負責提供法律指引。由於有些案件涉及違反

不同選舉法例中與選舉有關的罪行條文，而由

於廉政公署和警方分別負責執行《選舉 ( 舞弊及

非法行為 ) 條例》( 第 554 章 ) 及其他選舉法例，

新措施有助律師就是否提出檢控或以其他措施

( 如發出警告 ) 代替檢控，為廉政公署和警方提

供一致和統一的指引。

Section IV(3) ICAC (Public Sector)

The ICAC (Public Sector) Section is a specialized section responsible for providing legal advice to the ICAC on corruption cases relating to government departments and public bodies, as well as election cases involving complaints on corrupt and illegal conduct at elections. Starting from February 2015, the Section was headed by Mr Robert Lee, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions with a small workforce comprising 3 Senior Public Prosecutors and 1 Public Prosecutor. Throughout the year, counsel in the Section worked tirelessly and rendered advice to a total of 152 corruption cases and 68 election cases referred to by the ICAC. The advice covered a diverse range of legal issues, from appropriateness to invoke special powers of investigation provided under Part III of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201), intended applications for search warrants against premises where privileged materials may be present, strength of evidence and venue of trial. Despite a taxing advisory caseload, counsel in the Section endeavored to prosecute some of the more complex and sensitive cases advised by them, both at trial and appeal.

The year saw new work initiatives adopted by the Section to tackle election cases. We tapped on the expertise of counsel of the Constitutional Development & Elections Unit in the Legal Policy Division, who are tasked to advise on election matters from a constitutional and legal policy perspective, and joined forces with them to hold meetings with directorate officers and specialist Investigators of the relevant team of the ICAC on a wide range of legal issues relating to enforcement of the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554) (ECICO). On one occasion, officers of the Registration and Electoral Office, as well as the Community Relations Department of the ICAC, were invited to the meeting to discuss the issues. Opinions on different approaches to interpretation of certain provisions in the Ordinance were raised and discussed, with valuable input provided by the investigators as to their working experience in enforcement.

The meetings served as a useful platform for relevant stakeholders to discuss legal issues in enforcing the ECICO, with strategy mapped out to ensure that public elections in Hong Kong are conducted in a fair and honest manner. On 23 October 2015, drawing on the conclusions reached in the meetings, Mr Robert Lee and Ms Dorothy Cheng, Acting Deputy Principal Government Counsel of the Legal Policy Division, provided a joint training seminar to the officers of the ICAC on the legal issues in respect of various provisions under the ECICO.

Another initiative was the expansion of our advisory portfolio to take over all police cases on minor election offences from the Magistrates’ Court Advisory (General Prosecutions) Section, which had previously been tasked to provide legal advice to these cases. The new initiative enables counsel to adopt a consistent and uniform approach in advising both the ICAC and the police as to whether to institute prosecution, or adopt other measures in lieu of prosecution such as issue a warning, for cases involving contraventions of the election-related offence provisions contained in different electoral legislation which the 2 law enforcement agencies are separately tasked to enforce, namely the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554) by the ICAC, and other legislation by the Police.

62

下文載述年內由本組律師提供法律指引和檢控

的一些較為重要案件：

(i) 在香港特別行政區 訴 羅舜泉 ( 粉嶺裁判法

院刑事案件 2014 年第 4991 號 ) 一案中，

被告是大埔區區議員，他涉嫌向大埔區議會

申請津貼時，作出虛假聲稱，被控四項欺詐

罪。有關申請發還的款項，是用以支付被告

聲稱過去四年間向四名助理所支付的薪金合

共港幣 500,000 元。四名助理應他要求在

沒有收取款項的情況下，簽署記錄表示收取

了款項。被告向大埔區議會提交該等記錄作

申請發還款項，從而取得港幣 500,000 元。

他經審訊後被裁定所有罪名成立，判監五個

月。被告其後就定罪提出上訴，但遭駁回。

(ii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 黃冠豪 ( 東區裁判法

院刑事案件 2012 年第 2192 號 ) 一案中，

被告是一名警司暨灣仔分區指揮官。他在擔

任指揮官的警區內一家食肆享用豐盛晚餐

時，接受店主提供大幅折扣，被控屬普通法

的公職人員行為不當罪。被告負責處理灣仔

區內食肆東主遞交的酒牌申請，並就有關申

請向警方的相關批核當局提供建議。被告明

知案中店主當時正申請酒牌，而在未獲發牌

下在店內售賣酒類 ( 酒精 ) 飲料是會觸犯無

牌賣酒罪，但被告仍接受有關折扣。他既無

採取執法行動，也沒有就有關飲食享有折扣

和他當時正處理該店主遞交的酒牌申請，向

管理層作出申報有牽涉利益衝突。他經審訊

後被裁定罪名成立，判監一年。被告就定罪

提出的上訴遭駁回，但監禁刑期在上訴後減

至六個月。

(iii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 李欽培 ( 第一被告 )及其他 11 人 ( 區院刑事案件 2015 年第 25號 ) 一案中，12 名被告被控 22 項串謀欺詐

罪，經審訊後被裁定罪名成立。案情指涉案

新界男性原居村民依據俗稱“丁”權申請建

屋牌照藉以在新界興建小型屋宇時，向地政

總署作出欺詐。第一被告是地產發展商，在

沙田大輋村擁有數幅土地，其餘 11 名被告

是男性原居村民。第一被告與其餘 11 名被

告各人和其他男性原居村民串謀，後者同意

接受第一被告約港幣 200,000 元的報酬，

作為他們申請建屋牌照興建聲稱屬他們自用

丁屋的代價。但事實上，所有村民並無土地

或財政資源興建丁屋，而他們各人都與第一

被告訂立一份同意放棄丁屋業權的協議，並

向地政總署隱瞞有關協議。第一被告被判處

監禁三年，而 11 名村民被告則被判處監禁

30 至 34 個月不等。

Some of the more significant cases advised and prosecuted by counsel during the year include the following:

(i) In HKSAR v Lo Sou-chour FLCC 4991/2014, the defendant was a District Councilor in Tai Po District. He was charged with 4 counts of fraud for having made false claims of allowance from the Tai Po District Council (TPDC). The claims were for reimbursement of payments of salary he had allegedly paid to 4 assistants over a period of 4 years in the total sum of HK$500,000. The assistants were asked to sign records to acknowledge receipt of the payments, which they did not receive, and the defendant submitted the records to the TPDC for reimbursement and thereby obtained the sum of HK$500,000. He was convicted after trial of all 4 charges and sentenced to 5 months’ imprisonment. He later appealed against the convictions and his appeal was dismissed.

(ii) In HKSAR v Wong Koon-ho Titus ESCC 2192/2012, the defendant was a Superintendent of Police cum Commander of the Wanchai Division. He was charged with the common law offence of misconduct in public office for having accepted substantial discounts on a lavish meal by the proprietor of a restaurant situated in the district under his command. He was responsible for processing liquor licence applications by owners of restaurants in Wanchai and submitting his recommendations on the applications to the relevant approving authority in the Police. He accepted the discounted meal knowing that the proprietor of the restaurant was at the time applying for a liquor licence, and given the licence had not yet been granted, was liable for the offence of selling liquor (alcohol) without licence at the restaurant. He took no enforcement action, nor declared a conflict of interest to the management in respect of the discounted meal and his concurrent processing of the relevant liquor licence application by the proprietor. He was convicted after trial and sentenced to imprisonment for 1 year. His appeal against conviction was dismissed whilst the sentence was reduced, on appeal, to 6 months’ imprisonment.

(iii) In HKSAR v Li Yam-pui (D1) and 11 Others DCCC 25/2015, the 12 defendants were convicted after trial of 22 counts of conspiracy to defraud. The case related to fraudulent applications by male indigenous villagers in the New Territories (NT) to the Lands Department for the issue of building licences to build small houses in the NT, pursuant to what is commonly known as a “Ding” right. D1 was a real estate developer and owned several pieces of land in Tai Che Village in Shatin whereas the other 11 defendants were male indigenous villagers. D1 conspired with each of the remaining 11 defendants, as well as other male indigenous villagers, whereby the latter agreed to accept a remuneration of around HK$200,000 from D1 as consideration for them to apply for building licences to build small houses allegedly for their exclusive occupation. All the villagers had in fact no land or financial means to build small houses, and each of them executed an agreement with D1 to relinquish their ownership of the houses, which agreement they concealed from the Lands Department. D1 was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment whereas the 11 defendant villagers to a term of imprisonment between 30 and 34 months.

分科

四 商

業罪

案Su

b-di

visi

on IV

Com

mer

cial

Crim

e

63

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

分科四第 4 組 ― 廉政公署 ( 私營機構 ) 案件Section IV(4) – ICAC (Private Sector)

分科四第 4 組 廉政公署 ( 私營機構 ) 案件

商界的貪污手法五花八門，包括受賄、敲詐和

賄賂。貪污擾亂巿場秩序，使公眾對公平營商

和競爭失去信心。對於杜絕這些貪污活動，香

港刑事司法制度擔當至關重要的角色，而廉政

公署 ( 私營機構 ) 案件組力求達到這杜絕貪污的

目標，組內檢控官均嚴格根據香港的反貪法例

行事。

本組在 2015 年由高級助理刑事檢控專員陳淑文

女士掌管，另有六名律師，負責檢控有關公司

和銀行詐騙，以及涉及代理人的貪污活動。他

們向廉政公署提供了 221 項法律指引，檢控了

共 82 宗案件，當中 57 宗在裁判法院審理，23宗在區域法院審理，另有兩宗在原訟法庭審理。

相比之下，在 2014 年檢控的案件則有 86 宗，

當中 71 宗在裁判法院審理，14 宗在區域法院

審理，另有一宗在原訟法庭審理。

此外，本組的檢控官為廉政公署人員舉辦培訓

課程，以提高他們在有關範疇的法律知識。檢

控官也出席在本港及海外舉行的會議和研討會，

就檢控貪污案件工作分享專業知識和經驗。

本組在 2015 年處理了多宗備受關注的重要案

件，包括下列案件：

(i) 在香港特別行政區 訴 劉夢熊 ( 第一被告 )及另二人 ( 第二及第三被告 ) ( 高院刑事案

件 2013 年第 561 號 ) 一案中，三名被告被

控兩項串謀詐騙罪。他們與一家上市公司的

主席串謀詐騙該公司的股東及香港聯合交易

所有限公司，在該上市公司有關收購若干美

國油田的公告及通函中作出虛假陳述，致使

前者贊同收購，而後者則准許刊登有關公告

及通函。文件內有多項虛假陳述，包括指其

中一間賣方公司及其實益擁有人為獨立於該

Section IV(4) ICAC (Private Sector)

Corruption in the business community takes various forms including graft, extortion and bribery. It disrupts the markets and causes the public to lose confidence in fair trade and competition. The criminal justice system in Hong Kong plays a pivotal role in eradicating corruption in this regard, and prosecutors in the ICAC (Private Sector) Section work towards this goal by rigorously applying Hong Kong’s anti-corruption laws.

In 2015, the Section, comprised 6 counsel and was headed by Ms Alice Chan, Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions, handled the prosecution of corrupt activities relating to corporate and banking fraud, and corrupt activities involving agents. They provided 221 advice to the ICAC. A total of 82 cases were prosecuted, 57 of which in the Magistrates’ Courts, 23 in the District Court and 2 in the Court of First Instance. Compared with 2014, 86 cases were prosecuted, with 71 cases in the Magistrates’ Courts, 14 cases in the District Court and 1 case in the Court of First Instance.

In addition, prosecutors in the Section provide training sessions to ICAC officers with a view to enhancing their legal knowledge in the area. They also shared expertise and experience on the prosecution of corruption cases in conferences and seminars held both locally and overseas.

Cases of interest and significance handled by the Section in 2015 include the following:

(i) In HKSAR v Lew Mon-hung (D1) and 2 Others (D2 and D3) HCCC 561/2013, the defendants were charged with two counts of conspiracy to defraud for conspiring together with the Chairman of a listed company to defraud the shareholders of the listed company and the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited, by making false representations in the listed company’s announcement and circular in respect of the acquisition of certain US oil fields, causing the former to approve the acquisition and the latter to allow the publication of the announcement and the circular. It was falsely represented in those documents, inter alia, that one of the vendor

64

上市公司的第三方，但該賣方公司的實益擁

有人實際上是該上市公司的主席。此外，三

名被告因處理該上市公司為收購而支付的金

錢和股份，各分別被加控一項、三項和一項

洗錢罪。經審訊後，第一被告被裁定全部控

罪罪名不成立，第二及第三被告則分別被裁

定全部及三項中的兩項罪名成立。第二被

告被判處監禁七年，第三被告被判處監禁五

年，法庭同時取消他們擔任公司董事資格

10 年。該兩名被告已就定罪及判刑申請上

訴許可。

(ii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 余力維 ( 第一被告 )及另一人 ( 第二被告 ) ( 區院刑事案件 2014年第 325 號 ) 一案中，第一被告具備豐富的

酒店管理經驗，一名商人把某酒店的餐廳交

託給他經營。第一被告委託第二被告協助他

物色飲食承辦商經營該餐廳，並在該名商人

不知情的情況下向有興趣的各方索取賄賂。

廉政公署接獲線報後採取臥底行動。臥底人

員與第一及第二被告商討該經營計劃。在會

面中，第一及第二被告向臥底人員索取港幣

98 萬元，臥底人員其後將港幣 25 萬元交給

第一及第二被告，作為部分繳款。此外，第

一及第二被告又藉詞收取該餐廳的開設成

本，企圖誘使臥底人員再向他們二人支付港

幣 160 萬元。第一及第二被告共同被控串

謀使代理人索取利益罪 ( 控罪一 )、處理已

知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財

產罪 ( 控罪二 )，以及企圖欺詐罪 ( 控罪三 )。經審訊後，第一及第二被告被裁定控罪一及

二罪名成立，而控罪三則罪名不成立。二人

分別被判處監禁 30 個月及 27 個月。法院

已駁回針對定罪判決的上訴許可申請 ( 刑事

上訴 2015 年第 237 號 )。

(iii) 香港特別行政區 訴 陳家松 ( 區院刑事案件

2015 年第 319 號 ) 一案涉及一宗內地礦業

公司股份的收購。被告是一家上巿公司的主

席，他以欺詐方式進行收購，向董事局隱瞞

該礦業公司在收購期間已另行簽立的協議。

此外，被告接受礦業公司其中一名東主的港

幣 100 萬元，作為收購的報酬。被告被控

欺詐罪 ( 控罪一 ) 和代理人接受利益罪 ( 控

罪二 )。經審訊後，法官裁定被告無須就控

罪一答辯，但控罪二則罪名成立，判處監禁

三年，同時取消他擔任公司董事資格五年。

被告就定罪及判刑申請上訴許可，但遭法院

駁回。

(iv) 在香港特別行政區 訴 MUS Sasa ( 東區裁判

法院刑事案件 2014 年第 2394 號 ) 一案中，

被告被控串謀詐騙罪。他是本港一支著名足

球隊的職業球員。在 2013 年 8 月至 2014年 5 月的球季中，該隊是 12 支參加香港足

球總會 (“足總”) 甲組足球聯賽的球隊之

companies and its beneficial owners were third parties independent of the listed company, while in fact that vendor company was beneficially owned by the Chairman of the listed company. In addition, each of the defendants was further charged with one, three and one count(s) of money laundering respectively for their acts of dealing with payments in money and shares made by the listed company for the acquisition. After trial, D1 was acquitted of all counts, while D2 and D3 were respectively convicted of all and two of the three counts they were charged with. D2 was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment and D3 was sentenced to 5 years’ imprisonment and they were both disqualified from becoming company directors for a period of 10 years. Both of them have applied for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence.

(ii) In HKSAR v Yu Lik-wai (D1) and Anor (D2) DCCC 325/2014, D1, experienced in hotel management, was entrusted by a businessman to operate the restaurant of a hotel. D1 engaged D2 to help him look for a caterer to operate the restaurant, and, unbeknown to the businessman, solicited bribes from interested parties. The ICAC, having received information about it, engaged in an undercover operation. Undercover officers discussed with D1 and D2 about the project, and during the meetings, D1 and D2 solicited HK$980,000 from the officers, and subsequently, undercover officers passed HK$250,000 to D1 and D2 as part payment. Also, D1 and D2 attempted to induce undercover officers to pay a further HK$1.6 million to them on the pretext of set-up cost for the restaurant. D1 and D2 were jointly charged with conspiracy for an agent to solicit an advantage (Charge 1), dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence (Charge 2), and attempted fraud (Charge 3). After trial, D1 and D2 were convicted of Charges 1 and 2 but were acquitted of Charge 3. They were sentenced to 30 and 27 months’ imprisonment respectively. Leave to appeal against conviction has been refused in CACC 237/2015.

(iii) HKSAR v Chen Jiasong DCCC 319/2015 was a case involving an acquisition of the shares of a mining company in China. The defendant, the Chairman of a listed company, concealed from the Board of Directors the agreements which had been executed by that mining company during the acquisition and fraudulently procured the acquisition. The defendant also accepted HK$1 million from one of the owners of the mining company as a reward for procuring the acquisition. The defendant was charged with fraud (Charge 1) and agent accepting an advantage (Charge 2). After trial, the Judge ruled that there was no case to answer on Charge 1 but convicted the defendant of Charge 2. The defendant was sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and was disqualified from being a company director for 5 years. His application for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused.

(iv) In HKSAR v Mus Sasa ESCC 2394/2014, the defendant was charged with the offence of conspiracy to defraud. He was a professional player of a local prominent football team (the Team). The Team was amongst 12 teams competing in the Hong Kong First Division League (FDL) organized by the Hong Kong Football Association (HKFA) in the football season which began in August 2013 and ended in May 2014. In one football match between the Team and 分

科四

商業

罪案

Sub-

divi

sion

IV C

omm

erci

al C

rime

65

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

一。在該隊對另一支聯賽球隊的賽事中，該

隊的行政主任在中場期間接觸被告，指示他

下半場不要盡力作賽。被告依從指示，球隊

也在賽事中落敗。賽後，球隊贊助人接觸被

告，有意給他港幣約 20,000 元，但被告拒

絕接受。球隊的要員和足總證實，操控賽事

的勾當會損害各會的經濟利益。被告經審訊

後被裁定罪名成立，被判監 12 個月。

分科四第 5 組 海關案件

香港海關負責根據有關反走私、保護知識產權、

保障政府收入、保障消費者和打擊洗錢的法律，

調查涉嫌罪行，而本組專責就有關罪行向香港

海關提供法律指引。訂明這些罪行的法例主要

有《進出口條例》( 第 60 章 )、《版權條例》( 第

528 章 )、《防止盜用版權條例》( 第 544 章 )、《商品說明條例》( 第 362 章 )、《應課稅品條

例》( 第 109 章 )、《消費品安全條例》( 第 456章 )、《玩具及兒童產品安全條例》( 第 424 章 )、《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集 ( 金融機構 ) 條

例》( 第 615 章 ) 和《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》( 第455 章 )。

2015 年，本組提供書面法律指引共 743 項，

2014 年則為 563 項。提供的法律指引數目顯著

急升，原因之一是 2013 年 7 月實施了《2012年商品說明 ( 不良營商手法 )( 修訂 ) 條例》。新

條文加強保障消費者，打擊誤導性遺漏、具威

嚇性的營業行為、餌誘式廣告宣傳、先餌誘後

銷售行為，以及不當地接受付款等不良營商手

法。由於社會自此逐漸認識有關的保障制度，

由消費者委員會轉介過來的案件日增 ( 該會是市

民向來提出投訴的第一站 )，而香港海關主動查

獲的案件也有增加。

another team in FDL, the Executive Officer of the Team approached the defendant at half-time and instructed him not to perform to his best ability in the second half of the match. The defendant complied and the Team lost the match. After the match, the sponsor of the Team approached the defendant and wanted to give him about HK$20,000. The defendant refused to accept the money. Officers of the Team and HKFA confirmed that match-fixing activities put the financial interests of the respective associations at risk. The defendant was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment upon conviction after trial.

Section IV(5) Customs and Excise

The Customs and Excise Department investigates suspected offences under the law on anti-smuggling, intellectual property rights protection, revenue protection, consumer protection and anti-money laundering. This Section specializes in advising the Customs and Excise Department on these offences which come mainly under the Import and Export Ordinance (Cap. 60), the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528), the Prevention of Copyright Piracy Ordinance (Cap. 544), the Trade Descriptions Ordinance (Cap. 362), the Dutiable Commodities Ordinance (Cap. 109), Consumer Goods Safety Ordinance (Cap. 456), Toys and Children’s Products Safety Ordinance (Cap. 424), Anti-money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance (Cap. 615) and the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455).

In 2015, the Section gave a total of 743 written legal advice, compared to 563 in 2014. The marked upsurge in the number of advice is partly accounted for by the coming into force in July 2013 of the Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices)(Amendment) Ordinance 2012. The new provisions enhanced protection of consumers against unfair trade practices, such as misleading omissions, aggressive commercial practices, bait advertising, bait-and-switch and wrongful acceptance of payment. Since then, there has been new public awareness of the protection regime, more referrals from the Consumer Council which is the customary first port of public complaints, and an increase in the number of cases that are detected by pro-active investigations conducted by the Customs and Excise Department.

One other reason for the increasing number was the fluxing of intellectual property cases, the commission of which had been rendered easier and speedier by exploitation of the internet.

Apart from giving legal advice, the Section is also responsible for monitoring and/or conducting prosecution that are initiated by the Customs and Excise Department including large scale cross-border smuggling and transnational money laundering cases.

Below is a summary of the significant cases that have been adjudged in 2015.

(i) In HKSAR v Li Shaojun DCCC 459/2015, an outgoing 7-seater private car driven by the defendant was intercepted at Lok Ma Chau Control Point. When asked if he had anything to declare, the defendant replied in the negative. The car was then searched. 12

66

這些案件數目趨升的另一原因是，罪犯利用互

聯網侵犯知識產權更為容易和便捷，以致知識

產權案件湧現。

除了提供法律指引外，本組也就香港海關起訴

的案件負責監督及／或檢控，包括大規模的跨

境走私及跨國洗錢案件。

下文概述 2015 年重要的已判決案件：

(i) 在香港特別行政區 訴 利紹君 ( 區院刑事案

件 2015 年第 459 號 ) 一案中，海關人員在

落馬洲管制站截停一輛出境的七座位私家

車，並查問當時駕駛車輛的被告有否任何物

品申報，他答稱沒有。海關人員遂搜查車

輛，發現中排的乘客座位下藏有 12 塊鈀板，

前排的地氈底則藏有 62 塊金屬板。被告在

警誡下承認替一名男子運送有關板塊，報酬

為港幣 10,000 元。根據隨後的估算，該等

檢獲物品的公平市值為港幣 2,000 萬元。被

告承認一項企圖輸出未列艙單貨物罪，被判

處監禁 22 個月。

(ii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 黃馮益 ( 東區裁判法

院刑事案件 2014 年第 3747 號 ) 一案中，

一名內地遊客到銅鑼灣一間由被告打理的藥

行購買花膠，看見店內一排木飾櫃內放置

各標價 580 元的花膠塊，遂問被告花膠標

價 580 元是否以每斤計，被告答“580”。

該遊客再問一斤有多少塊花膠，並在被告答

“約六七塊”後要了兩斤。被告秤了若干數

量的花膠後切成小塊。該遊客以信用卡付

款，但因看見簽帳單銀碼為港幣 10,000 元

而沒有簽署，並且要求被告解釋。被告說花

膠每両港幣 580 元，兩斤便要港幣 18,000多元。被告在對方追問下聲稱已如價錢牌所

示說，每両港幣 580 元。該價錢牌放在及

膝的不當眼位置，令人難以閱讀上面的內

容，而且“每両計”三字的字形遠比數目字

“$580”細小。該遊客要求取消交易，卻

遭被告以花膠已切碎為由拒絕。約四個月

後，該遊客再到同一藥行，看見花膠和價錢

牌仍以同一方式擺放。這次她錄下與被告的

對話。據錄音所述，她問被告價錢是否每斤

港幣 580 元，被告刻意以“一斤有 16 両”

等回應來誤導她。被告最終被控兩項作出屬

誤導性遺漏的營業行為罪，經審訊後裁定罪

名成立，分別判監六星期和四星期，刑罰分

期執行。法院也命令被告向該遊客賠償港幣

10,000 元。被告針對定罪提出上訴，但遭

法院駁回。

(iii) 在香港特別行政區 訴 鄭慧蓉 ( 第一被告 )及另二人 ( 第二和第三被告 ) ( 九龍城裁判

法院刑事案件 2014 年第 3903 號 ) 一案中，

受害人前往尖沙咀的美容院接受面部護理，

分科四第 5 組 ― 海關案件Section IV(5) – Customs and Excise

分科

四 商

業罪

案Su

b-di

visi

on IV

Com

mer

cial

Crim

e

palladium plates were found to have been concealed under the middle row of the passenger seat and 62 metal plates, under the carpet at the front row. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he delivered the plates for a man for a reward of HK$10,000. The fair market value of the seizure was later appraised to be HK$20 million. The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of attempting to export unmanifested cargo and was sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment.

(ii) In HKSAR v Wong Fung-yik ESCC 3747/2014, a Mainland tourist entered a Chinese medicine shop, manned by the defendant, in Causeway Bay to purchase some dried fish maw. The tourist saw on a row of wooden display cabinet containing fish maw, each with a price label displayed “$580” and asked the defendant whether the fish maw was priced $580 for one catty. The defendant replied “580”. He further asked how many pieces of fish maw in one catty, to which the defendant answered “about 6 to 7 pieces”. The tourist then requested two catties of the fish maw. The defendant weighed a quantity of fish maw and then cut them into small pieces. The tourist then made payment by credit card but stopped signing the credit slip when she saw the amount was HK$10,000. When she asked the defendant why, the defendant said each tael of the fish maw was HK$580 and so two catties amounted to over HK$18,000. When further queried, the defendant claimed he had said the price was HK$580 for one tael as shown by the price label. The price label was positioned at an awkward knee-height position, making the price label difficult to read, and that the characters for “per tael” were in much smaller prints than the numerals “$580”. When the tourist demanded to cancel the transaction, the defendant refused on the ground that the fish maw had already been cut. About 4 months later, the tourist went to the same shop and saw the same set-up of the fish maw and price labels. This time she recorded the dialogue between her and the defendant. The recording showed that when she asked the defendant whether the price was HK$580 per catty, the defendant deliberately gave misleading responses like “one catty has 16 taels”. The defendant

67

Prosecutions Hong K

ong 2015香

港刑

事檢

控

她被帶到護理室由第一被告為她護理面部。

當受害人接受護理，第二被告入房向受害人

聲稱營運經理 ( 即第三被告 ) 在店內，可向

她提供意見和贈品。第三被告入房後，要求

檢查受害人的淋巴系統，在受害人拒絕下，

她仍然進行所謂的胸部、腋窩和小腿檢查，

之後表示受害人的胸部和腋窩下有腫塊，而

且其中一邊比另一邊更為明顯和嚴重。第三

被告又指示第二被告檢查受害人的胸部和腋

窩。第二被告在所謂檢查過受害人後，表示

同意第三被告的“結論”。第三被告向受害

人表示，她必須馬上開始身體淋巴護理，又

說腫塊如不即時處理，將會突變成乳癌。其

後，各被告繼續力勸及要脅受害人購買護理

服務套餐，否則可能會患乳癌。受害人最終

在受到勸誘下以港幣 140,000 元購買身體

護理服務並交出她的信用卡，第二被告在該

信用卡戶口記賬港幣 70,000 元，並要求她

下次到美容院時繳付餘額。第一至第三被告

共同被控一項作出具威嚇性的營業行為罪，

經審訊後裁定罪名成立。第二及第三被告在

判刑前已向受害人歸還合共港幣 70,000 元

( 即受害人所付的金額 )。第二及第三被告

被判處監禁三個月，第一被告則被判處履行

200 小時社會服務。

(iv) 在香港特別行政區 訴 林文如 ( 屯門裁判法

院刑事案件 2015 年第 273 號 ) 一案中，海

關人員連同版權擁有人的代表突擊搜查元

朗一家補習社，在兩個課室內分別發現有

2,626 套和 833 套侵犯一本教科書版權的複

製品。補習社負責人 ( 被告 ) 及兩名導師被

捕。被告在警誡下承認為教學用途而使用侵

犯版權的複製品，並聲稱他將侵犯版權的複

製品掃描後存入硬碟，以作備用教材。被告

被控兩項罪名，即管有作品的侵犯版權複製

品，以期令某人可為任何貿易或業務的目的

或在任何該等貿易或業務的過程中，分發該

侵犯版權複製品。被告承認兩項控罪，各被

判處履行 80 小時社會服務，同期執行。

was eventually charged and convicted after trial of 2 counts of engaging in a commercial practice that is a misleading omission, and was sentenced to consecutive sentences of 6 weeks and 4 weeks. He was also ordered to pay a compensation of HK$10,000 to the tourist. The defendant lodged an appeal against conviction but was dismissed.

(iii) In HKSAR v Cheng Wai-yung (D1) and 2 Others (D2-D3) KCCC 3903/2014, the victim went to a beauty parlour in Tsim Sha Tsui for facial treatment. She was led to a treatment room where Dl provided facial treatment for her. While the victim was receiving treatment, D2 entered the room and claimed to the victim that the operation manager, namely D3 was at the shop and she could provide advice to her and give her free gifts. D3 entered the room and asked to conduct a check on victim’s lymphatic system. The victim refused, but a purported check of her breasts, armpits and calves was nonetheless conducted, after which it was said that there were lumps in the victim’s breasts and under her armpits. It was also said that the lumps were more prominent and serious on one side than the other. D3 further asked D2 to examine the victim’s breasts and armpits. D2 purportedly examined the victim and expressed agreement with D3’s “findings”. D3 told the victim that she must start a lymphatic body treatment right away, adding that if one did not deal with the lumps immediately, the lumps would mutate into breast cancer. Thereafter the defendants kept urging and threatening the victim to agree to buying the treatment package or else she might have breast cancer. Eventually the victim was coaxed to purchase the body treatment package at HK$140,000. When the victim handed over her credit card, D2 charged HK$70,000 to her credit card account. The victim was further required to pay the outstanding balance when she next visited the beauty salon. D1 - D3 were jointly charged and convicted after trial of a count of engaging in a commercial practice that was aggressive. D2 and D3 repaid a total HK$70,000 (the amount paid by the victim) to the victim before sentencing. D2 and D3 were sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment whereas D1 was sentenced to perform Community Service of 200 hours.

(iv) In HKSAR v Lam Man-yu TMCC 273/2015, Customs officers, together with a representative of the copyright owner, raided a tuition centre in Yuen Long. Upon premises search, 2,626 and 833 sets of infringing copy of a textbook were found in two tuition rooms respectively. The owner of the tuition centre (the defendant) and 2 tutors were arrested. Under caution, the defendant admitted that he used the infringing copies for teaching purposes and alleged he prepared the infringing copies for use as teaching materials by scanning and saving them in a hard disk. The defendant was charged with two counts of possession of infringing copy of the work with a view to its being distributed by any person for the purpose of or in the course of any trade or business. The defendant pleaded guilty to both charges and was sentenced to perform Community Service of 80 hours for each charge, both to run concurrently.