香港特別行政區 訴 龍少泉

DCCC 410/2021

[2021] HKDC 1459

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2021年第410號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

1.被告人，現年55歲，為一名退休高級警務人員，經審訊後被法庭裁定兩項欺詐罪罪成，違反香港法例第210章《盜竊罪條例》第16 A條。

2.案情透露被告人在2016年9月，當時官階為總督察的他透過政府的「購屋貸款計劃」申請貸款，分別成功地從政府取得$2,076,100元的貸款及從匯豐銀行取得390萬元的按揭，並以660萬購得愉景灣一間連租約的單位。

3.不論針對政府或銀行而言，其行騙手法主要是在申請書上訛稱所購入的單位是交吉物業，但事實上是連租約的，他更與原租客續簽租約在緊接樓宇交易完成日(2016年11月30日)的翌日起租，往後再續簽兩次租約直至2019年3月，原租客提早解約遷出後；再於2019年6月至2020年8月期間，被告人把單位租給另一人。當時已晉升為警司的被告人在第二個月（2020年9月）便給廉署拘捕。

4.就政府向被告人所提供的「購屋貸款計劃」而言，若被告人成功取得貸款並購置單位，首先他不用遷出當時居住的宿舍，而所得的貸款會在他退休時的大糧(Lump Sum)中扣除。這計劃的條款容許被告人把單位給予其家庭成員居住（正如他向銀行所表述的 — 由父母居住），但不得出租。

5.換句話說，被告人透過這行騙手段從政府方面提早取得這份大糧，再從銀行方面取得較大成數的按揭金額，購買涉案物業，令其獲得超過100萬元的租金收入（控辯雙方同意被告人在這段期間(約為三年半)的租金收入總額為$1,161,500 ）。

6.被告人已婚，育有一名現年18歲正在英國讀書的兒子。代表被告人的林大律師在求情時道出被告人的奮鬥史，他出生於一個基層大家庭，家中有八兄弟姊妹，父母經營臨時食檔以維持一家生計。

7.為了減輕父母的負擔，被告人中五畢業後便投身社會，加入警隊當警員從低做起；他沒有因為失去上大學的機會而放棄學習，他讀夜校進修為自己增值。憑着自己的努力，在警隊中攀升至警隊高級管理層任職警司。

8.辯方呈遞了大量的求情信主要來自被告人的親戚朋友和警隊中的同僚，各人對其個人品格、待人處事與及其工作態度都給予高度評價，讚口不絕。

9.例如被告人的一位前上司指出被告人是一位好好先生，本性善良而且樂於助人；不但在日常生活中付出自己的時間義務幫助別人，更在社會不同層面培育下一代等方面作出貢獻。

10.又例如他的一位同事說:「被告人對警務工作充滿熱誠，儆惡懲奸，嫉惡如仇，屢獲上司嘉許，本人為其感到高興。他亦不斷提攜後輩、樂於助人，我曾邀請他給意見於有意加入警隊的朋友兒子，他樂於分享工作經驗，教導後輩守法，他為警隊培養新一代警務人員，默默耕耘。」

11.林大律師指出被告人與太太識於微時，在他們中學求學階段認識，其後更由被告人支付太太負笈海外升讀大學，學成歸來兩人共諧連理。

12.在太太眼中，被告人是一位好好先生，為人正直、循規蹈矩和嫉惡如仇。太太在信中提到雙方家庭成員眾多，每當聚會時，他總會親自下廚為眾人做一頓豐富餸菜，務求給所有人樂在其中，老人家享受天倫之樂。被告人從不計較，不吝嗇，更不斂財。

13.信中還提到一件在巴黎旅行期間所發生的軼事，他們在地鐵車廂內遇到小偷集團，當中一人給被告人抓獲，當時正值下班時間，地鐵也停駛。他們花了8小時協助當地警方處理這案件。

14.其兒子在信中也指爸爸是一位欖球教練義工，從自己繁忙的工作抽空為一眾兒童帶來歡樂，每星期風雨不改。

15.當然還有很多、很多稱讚被告人的求情信，在此不能盡錄。

16.就被告人目前健康而言，林大律師指被告人曾經暈倒送院，可能與其心臟有關但仍在調查中。辯方呈遞一份養和醫院心臟科中心發出日期為2021年4月29日的醫療報告，當中林大律師特別指出以下的意見。

Comments:

“No intra-cardiac shunt on colour Doppler but PFO or small ASD cannot be excluded. No pericardiac effusion.”

17.林大律師指 “PFO or ASD” 是指心臟有「洞」的症狀，但辯方並沒有再提供進一步更新的醫療報告；以上醫療意見只表示不能排除(Cannot be excluded)，而實際情況怎樣並不確切。從林大律師的陳述來看，被告人的心臟問題(如有的話)並非到了危害生命的階段，本席相信他目前得到適當的醫療照顧。

18.至於心理方面，由香港警務處心理服務課（日期2021年11月9日）發出的報告，臨床心理學家Dr Lau 指出:

“My clinical impression is that Mr Lung was presented with Major Depressive Disorders with anxious distress, which was precipitated by the investigation and perpetuated by the multiple legal and life (e.g. family, health)  streesors. He manifested significant depressive and anxiety symptoms, which had affected his daily functioning. As such, Mr Lung was suggested to consult psychiatrist for medical treatment regarding his mood condition at this juncture, and also after his sentencing for more adequate coping and adjustment.”

19.以被告人的背景，面對這般嚴重的刑事指控，再經歷審訊，不難想像他所承受的心理壓力。其實這類案件所牽涉的被告人，一般都在政府中身居要職，具有良好背景的人，他們一旦犯事而要面對審訊所會遇到的壓力及尷尬應該是可預見的。

20.本席稍後會提及的一宗律政司就刑期提出覆核的案例Pao Wai Hong CAAR 3/2004，案情涉及PTA 的欺詐，原審法官考慮的求情理由包括第(v)點:

(v)- “Although there had been no delay in the case being brought to court, the respondent had been ‘under pressure’ since the commencement of the investigation”

上訴庭的回應是:

“We pause here merely to observe, with respect, that we do not consider the mitigation in (v)  to have carried any weight…….”

21.在量刑方面而言，林大律師表示涉及「購屋貸款計劃」做假的情況，沒有先例可援，本案看來是第一宗。他所援引的案例(Fan Yung Cheong DCCC 261/12, Lau Ming Chu CACC 225/2004(只就定罪提出上訴), Leung Chiu Ping & other DCCC 372/2015)，當中違規的行為涉及的資助計劃為Private Tenancy Allowance(PTA)/Home Finance Allowance(HFA)，原審法庭均以緩刑處理，而在區域法院的兩宗案件有關的被告是認罪的。

22.就以上提及的資助計劃而言，過往亦有另一宗上訴案例 Yuen Kai Tak CACC 269/2011，案情同樣牽涉公務員透過 PTA 詐騙政府，該上訴人因五項 “being an agent using a document with intent to deceive his principal (contrary to s9(3)  of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance)”，審訊後被定罪被判處18個月監禁。該上訴人放棄其刑期上訴，但最終他的定罪上訴也被駁回。

23.值得一提的是原審法官在Yuen案並沒有作出歸還令(Restitution Order)  (因此沒有就此因素給予刑期扣減)，而是根據防止賄賂條例頒令該被告人須於服刑完畢後指定時限內把欺騙所得的款項交還政府。

24.從以上的案例可見，涉及同樣計劃的造假案件，量刑可有不同。這類罪行沒有判刑指引，換言之，一切視乎個別案件的案情與及個別被告人的情況而定。

25.首先簡述這些政府資助公務員的計劃，以PTA為例，合資格的公務員可向政府申請租金津貼，條件是他對其所租住的單位不能擁有任何利益；至於HFA，合資格的公務員若購買了住屋單位，則可向政府申請按揭津貼。

26.PTA 與HFA 不同之處在於前者不用有關的公務員放棄日後申請宿舍的權利，而領取租金津貼亦沒有時限，但後者則不然，有關的公務員首先需要放棄申請宿舍的權利而領取按揭津貼的期限為10年。

27.但其實上訴庭早於2004年已就這類涉及計劃(PTA和HFA)的詐騙曾經發表意見（Pao Wai Hong CAAR 3/2004 - 此案例在以上DCCC 261/2012一案原審法官亦有提及）。

28.上訴庭在Pao案雖然沒有批准控方刑期覆核的申請(基於別的理由)，但判詞強調這類詐騙行為的嚴重性，一般情況下須判處即時監禁，尤其對於那些經審訊後被定罪的被告人。本席在此引述判詞第19、21及22段:

19. It was plainly the intention of this court to state that a custodial sentence should normally be imposed. In all cases of this kind, it is to be expected that such offenders, who are invariably to be regarded as having exemplary character by virtue of their position as senior Government servants, will normally go to prison for fraudulent behaviour on this scale. They are people who will have had every advantage in life and who, motivated by reasons of sheer greed, have acted not only in breach of the general trust reposed in them to act honestly towards the Government which has employed them but also fraudulently towards the public whose taxes are utilised in the payment of such benefits as these.

21. In the second very similar review decision to which the judge in the court below was referred, namely, Secretary for Justice v Lin Minying & Anor [2002] 2 HKLRD 823, this also concerned two university lecturers who were again husband and wife who had been convicted of a PTA fraud after trial. They were each sentenced to 240 hours of community service on charges of furnishing false information, contrary to section 19(1)(b)  of the Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210. Although such a charge carries a higher maximum sentence than the charges brought in the present case, we do not consider that this provides any distinction of any materiality. The total PTA received by the respondents in Lin Minying amounted to about $1 million and the “true gain”, being the difference between the PTA and the HFA, was accepted by the sentencing judge to have been approximately $280,000. The respondents, during their remand in custody for two weeks for the preparation of reports, had voluntarily repaid the PTA they had received plus interest, a total of $1.4 million. The court in that case went on (at p. 831)  to observe:

“Having weighed the various factors to which we have already referred, we consider that whilst the sentence imposed on each respondent by this very experienced judge was undoubtedly a merciful one, and that the respondents would have had no valid complaint if they had been sentenced to an immediate term of imprisonment, the interests of justice are not such as to require this court to allow this application.”

22. It is worthwhile repeating Judge Sweeney’s remarks in that case, cited by this court with approval (at p. 827), which were as follows:

“If there are such people out there, they can expect ‘the greatest clemency’ (to borrow a phrase I have read a lot of recently)  if they immediately put their hands up and admit their guilt and offer to repay all monies improperly obtained as soon as possible. In that way they will not only be showing remorse, but also saving the prosecution authorities a great deal of time and effort as these can be complicated and troublesome cases to prosecute. That is what I would term ‘the honourable approach’.

By stark contrast, what we have had in this case is ‘the dishonourable approach’. This is where a defendant hopes to brazen it out by not only forcing the prosecution to prove its case, but also allowing evidence to be called to try to support the original deceit. Then, and only then, if that fails, come forward with page after page of good character reference and offer to pay back all monies improperly obtained in order to avoid full punishment for their crime.

Just as (D1 and D2)  chose the best of both worlds when deciding what finance to apply for, so also they have chosen the best of both worlds in deciding how to approach this prosecution. They have allowed Mr Yau Koon-ting to go through the agony of spending three days in the witness-box telling lies on their behalf.”

29.平情而論，本案辯方確實採取了務實的辯護手法，辯方對於控方大部份案情並不爭議，主要是傳召被告人出庭解釋相關事情。

30.有點值得留意的是，以上案例（Pao案）有提及 “true gain” 28萬元，有關的公務員可選擇兩種計劃當中一項向政府申請津貼，法庭把其騙得的PTA減去HFA(若他按此計劃作出適當申請所得的津貼)便得出其實際得益 “true gain”。但在本案並沒有此情況出現，因為縱使被告人如實按正常途徑申請有關貸款，他也不能把單位出租令自己獲得租金的利益。

31.其實，政府透過「購屋貸款計劃」給予被告人的資助是相當優待的 — 若被告人成功獲得貸款購入單位，他不用遷出當時居住的宿舍(但PTA/HFA不能同時享用這兩種福利)，只限制他不能把單位出租。他把單位出租明顯不是因需要所致而是出於貪心。

32.林大律師向法庭表示被告人願意交出其犯罪得益，即$1,161,500，並同意法庭頒下歸還令(Restitution Order)。林大律師續說是次定罪會令被告人失去350萬元的退休金及每月不少於六萬元的長俸。

33.最後，林大律師強調被告人一生奉公守法，沒有案底，這次犯事絕對與其性格不符，要求法庭考慮到他的身心狀況、個人背景及所失去的金錢利益，判處緩刑或一項短的刑期。

34.看回本案，沒有先例可援，但本席認為本案有其嚴重之處，被告人首先透過欺騙手段取得有關貸款和按揭，期間他行使虛假文書又作出虛假聲明，這些本身都是嚴重的刑事行為。作為一位執法者，更應明白不應這樣做；更甚者，他透過自己的犯罪行為獲得超過一百萬元的得益(租金)，這令案情更為嚴重。

35.被告人是經審訊後而被定罪，再加上案情嚴重，判處緩刑並不恰當。從整體來看，本席認為兩年足以反映其刑責。

36.就每項控罪而言，本席以兩年作為量刑起點，考慮到他過往沒有刑事紀錄與及求情中所有描述對其有利的事宜，減刑2個月；至於他把其犯罪得益$1,161,500交還出來，本席再給予4個月的扣減，總共減刑6個月。因此，每項控罪刑期減至18個月。本席頒令兩項刑期同期執行，總刑期為18個月監禁。

37.另外，本席同時頒下歸還令 — 被告人須於二十一天內把$1,161,500元歸還香港特別行政區政府。