香港特別行政區 訴 黎惠文

DCCC 865/ 2008

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2008年第865號

________________________

________________________

主審法官: 區域法院暫委法官葉佐文

日期:     2009年2月26日上午9時31分

判刑理由

控罪及案情

1.第一被告承認兩項控罪。第一項控罪指他於2008年8月20日以欺騙手段取得財產，即是以冒充信用卡持有人，使用一張他人的信用卡來購物，違反香港法例第210章《盜竊罪條例》第17（1）條。他使用該張信用卡，從一間位於尖沙咀麼地道的G2000店鋪購得兩條長褲和兩件外套，總值$1,100。付款期間，店員發覺他的樣貌近似公司電郵所傳播之可疑人物，於是暗中報警。他犯案得手後被警察在門外拘捕，在他身上檢獲該張信用卡及一張TD The GM Card VISA 卡。警察發現該兩張信用卡的真正持卡人均不是他。

2.第二項控罪指他於同日盜竊上述所指的該張信用卡，違反《盜竊罪條例》第9條。

3.在警誡下，他說該兩張信用卡是在好時中心附近找到的，他因一時貪心才用了其中一張來購物。

被告的個人情況

4.根據被告的《認證經歷》，他現年36歲，未婚，與女朋友同居。家父已去世，家母年老多病，家中還有兄弟姊妹，均已成年。他唸書至中四程度，曾任水電技工及侍應。自2008年5月起無業。萬峰實業公司於2008年8月11日決定聘請他為營業員，當時已知他的過往刑事紀錄。還未上任，他卻於2008年8月20日犯下本案。辯方現呈交萬峰實業公司的信，說明了解到被告犯下本案，日後依然願意給他機會。

5.辯方大律師陳詞指被告犯下本案是因一時貪心，被告在2008年2月1日有一項盜竊紀錄。

判刑法律原則

以他人的信用卡騙取貨物

6.雖然這類案件沒有判刑規範，但是法庭一般判處監禁。司徙冕法官在HKSAR v Cheung Ka-wo CACC No 136 of 2001 案例中指出，本港法庭對信用卡騙案須判重刑，藉此維持信用卡系統運作的可靠性：

11．It is well known that in this jurisdiction severe sentences are given to those who commit offences of the kind with which we are presently concerned as a deterrent to others who are like-minded.  One justification for this is that the integrity of the credit card system is highly important in this day and age and the confidence which people, as Mr Madigan pointed out in the course of his argument, are entitled to place on this aspect of modern commercial life is necessarily eroded by others who attempt to beat the system by fraudulent methods.

7.司徙冕法官在HKSAR v Yau Wai Chun CACC 417/ 2000 案例中重申此類案件在刑責上的分別可以很大，因此難以一概而論地作出指引，就沒有涉及國際元素的簡單手法而言，若金額在$50,000至$150,000之間，法庭應判處5至6年監禁；此類案件最大的考慮因素是該罪行所搆成的“潛在損失”("potential for losses")：

10．In R v Chan Sui-to and Another [1996] 2 HKCLR 128, where some guidance was given in regard to sentencing in cases involving the fraudulent use of credit cards, the court stated at page 134A:

"Allowing for the different facts and the varying degrees of culpability, it is impossible to formulate a set of principles of sentencing from those decisions. We think however it would be helpful to the courts if they were guided by some criterion. We would therefore suggest that an accused who plays an active but not necessarily a key role in a medium size operation involving between $50,000 and $150,000, with no elaborate planning and equipment, and without an international dimension, should receive a sentence of five to six years after trial. Sentences may be adjusted upwards or downwards according to circumstances.

The sum of money involved is of course only one of the factors to be taken into account. It is not even the most significant factor."

11. As a corollary to this, the court stated in HKSAR v Ng Swee Thiam and Others [2000] 1 HKLRD 772 at 778, that it was the "potential for losses" which was the most important consideration in that case. This, it should be said, will often have relevance, as it does in the matter presently before us. It has long been recognised in Hong Kong that those who indulge in fraud of this kind can expect to be given severe sentences as it erodes the confidence which people are entitled to have in a society where great dependence is placed on the credit card method of payment. (See: Attorney General v Chan Piu-sang and Another [1994] 1 HKCLR 211).

拾遺不報

8.這類案件沒有判刑規範。

同期或分期執行刑期

9.在案例 Attorney General v Cheung Pit-yiu CAAR 11/1988當中, 康氏法官指出，只有屬同一項事情所產生的罪行方可判以同期執行，法官最終可透過整體刑期原則調節總刑期:

6．This Court has more than once had cause to restate the general principle that concurrent sentences are only appropriate for offences that can properly be said to have been committed in the course of a single transaction. That can hardly be said of offences involving the possession of drugs, as the judge below correctly believed, on occasions which occurred in separate months. We agree therefore with the submission of Mr. Cross, who now appears for the Attorney General, that the concurrent sentences in fact passed below would he wrong in principle, unless of course, the principle of overall totality required that in the circumstances no further punishment should be imposed. 

整體刑期原則

10.在英國上訴案例 R v McKechan [2004] EWCA Crim 212當中，David Clarke J說分期執行的總刑期不應超逾各罪行的總刑責：

5．The principle of totality, that is the principle that consecutive sentencing for multiple offences must not be used so as to produce a total sentence which is excessive for the overall offending

11.在案例HKSAR v Zhen Futing Cr App 509/2003當中, 司徙敬法官說法官應先就個別罪行判刑，然後才考慮整體刑期的問題。

18.       Judges must always sentence accurately for each particular offence and having done so, only then address the question of totality.

判刑

12.根據上述Zhen Futing的原則，本席應先就個別控罪判刑。就第一項控罪而言，本席以兩年半作為判刑起點，被告認罪可獲三分之一扣減，除此之外便沒有求情因素，本席判被告一年零八個月監禁。就第二項控罪而言，本席以六個月作為判刑起點，被告認罪可獲三分之一扣減，除此之外便沒有求情因素，本席判被告四個月監禁。

13.根據上述 Cheung Pit-yiu的原則，本案兩項罪行並非屬同一項事情所產生，刑期應分期執行。

14.本席考慮過上述McKechan 的整體刑期原則，認為兩年監禁不算過長，因此頒令全數分期執行。