香港特別行政區 訴 鄭書武及另二人
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 539/2009 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 16 September 2010.
1. 第1至3被告人共同面對第1項「串謀使用虛假文書」罪，違反香港法例第200章《刑事罪行條例》第73、159A及159C條。罪行詳情指3名被告人於或約於2009年1月20日在香港，知道或相信某些虛假文書屬虛假的情形下一同串謀使用該等文書，意圖誘使另一人接受該等文書為真文書，並因接受該等文書為真文書而作出或不作某些作為，以致對該另一人或其他人不利。
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 1 case
|
DCCC 539/2009 香港特別行政區 區域法院 刑事案件編號2009年第539號
判刑理由書 1.第1至3被告人共同面對第1項「串謀使用虛假文書」罪，違反香港法例第200章《刑事罪行條例》第73、159A及159C條。罪行詳情指3名被告人於或約於2009年1月20日在香港，知道或相信某些虛假文書屬虛假的情形下一同串謀使用該等文書，意圖誘使另一人接受該等文書為真文書，並因接受該等文書為真文書而作出或不作某些作為，以致對該另一人或其他人不利。 2.第3被告人獨自面對第2項「管有虛假文書」罪， 違反香港法例第200章《刑事罪行條例》第75(2)條。罪行詳情指被告人於2009年1月20日在香港，知道或相信某些虛假文書屬虛假的情形下，在無合法權限或辯解下保管或控制該等文書。 案件背景 3.3名被告人在2009年1月20日與另外兩名人士前往香港匯豐銀行位於旺角朗豪坊的保檢部辦公室，要求匯豐銀行的職員檢查和確認當時由第3被告人帶著的一些類似債券的文件的真假。由於職員在安排會面前已經懷疑他們在使用虛假文書和通知警方，商業罪案調查科的警員當場把3名被告人拘捕。警員後來在第3被告人隨身的財物中找到其他虛假文書。 有關罪行詳情在本席的裁決理由書內交代，不在此重複。 4.第1、2被告人無任何刑事定罪記錄。第3被告人只有一個跟本案不類似的定罪記錄，本席在判刑時也假設他為無刑事定罪記錄人士處理。 第1、2被告人的求情 5.第1被告人51歲，內地人。擁有商業管理碩士學位。事發時為一間名為永和投資有限公司的總經理。第1被告人與丈夫在十多年前分開後便一直獨居內地。他們21歲的女兒現在美國大學接受教育。 6.辯方求情陳詞指第1、2被告人均是根據別人指示來港，背後主腦另有其人。他們在被捕後的11個月不能回內地與家人會面，手頭上的工作也被逼停止，等候審訊。 7.辯方指在本案中沒有任何人受到任何傷害，匯豐銀行也沒有損失分文。雖然他們的計畫看似周詳，事實上匯豐銀行發出存款證明書的機會微乎其微。法庭在判刑時應考慮到計畫不會令任何人受到經濟損失。再者，計畫最後失敗，無任何證據顯示被告人得益。 第3被告人的求情 8.第3被告人52歲，為已婚退休人士，女兒26歲。退休前在吉林的工廠任職工人。被告人身患頗嚴重糖尿病。代表第3被告人的簡大律師採納謝資深大律師有關計畫注定失敗的陳詞。簡大律師指不同於牽涉例如信用狀的案件，本案中被告人的罪行不會影響香港作為金融中心的聲譽。 9.簡大律師最後指出，雖然案件中的同意事實指案中文書屬虛假文書，第3被告人仍然堅持他管有的物品全屬真品。 案例 10.在 HKSAR v Lim Ban Hoong, CACC 465/2007一案中，雖然該案牽涉罪行是串謀詐騙，但案情相近，可供參考。再者，串謀詐騙與第73條的使用虛假文書罪的最高刑罰同樣為14年，反映立法機關認為兩者的嚴重程度相若。 11.該案涉及有人向一間香港銀行展示一份面額一千零八十億美金，日期為1948年10月的存款證明協議書，內容指該存款人或其代表可收取年利息8％，以30張每張面額36億美元的支票取款。該案中的上訴人和共犯們向銀行展示該文書和支票，訛稱得到存款人授權，意圖全數提取一千零八十億美金和積存的利息後存入內地的一個銀行戶口。 12.該案中上訴人被原審法官裁定為案件主腦，審訊後定罪，判刑3年3個月。上訴庭不同意上訴人提出有關計畫注定失敗的事實為求情因素的說法,也裁定3年3個月的判刑起點正確。【見上訴庭裁決理由書，第15至21段】[1] 判刑 13.控罪1的《刑事罪行條例》第73條罪行的最高刑罰是監禁14年。同一條例，控罪2的第75(2)條罪行的最高刑罰是監禁3年。 控罪1 14.本席裁定各被告人同意參與，也事實上參與了一個有長遠和嚴緊組織的使用虛假文書計畫。本席同意資深大律師的說法，他們背後必定另有主腦，懷著更大的圖謀，意圖使他人相信第3被告人坐擁巨資。然而，沒有第1、2被告人的參與的話，他們也不能走了這麼遠。 15.有關求情陳詞中計畫注定失敗的說法，本席採納以上引述的Lim Ban Hoong案例，裁定這不是真正求情因素。 16.本席在考慮所有案情後裁定三名被告人涉案程度相若，各人均以3年刑期為判刑起點。各被告人在審訊後被定罪，不能得到任何量刑扣減，也沒有任何求情因素令本席需要扣減刑期。 控罪2 17.本席在考慮所有案情後裁定對第3被告人獨自面對的控罪2來說，18個月的判刑起點是合適的判刑起點。考慮到第3被告人被定罪的兩條控罪刑期的整體後果，命令刑期全數同期執行，第3被告人兩條控罪共判監3年。
[1] 15. As we have said, it was Mr McGowan’s submission that the conspiracy to defraud the bank was so obviously doomed to failure that, in assessing sentence, the judge was obliged to take into account what in reality amounted to no more than a notional risk. We did not agree. [2] 16. This is not the first time that financial institutions and individuals in Hong Kong have been subjected to attempts to convince them that monetary instruments of different kinds, instruments of considerable vintage created in times of war and turbulence, are genuine and are either of enormous value in themselves or have such value by reason of the fact that they represent proof of a debt due. The fact that a conspiracy to defraud stretches the limits of audacity is not of itself a mitigating factor. [3]17. All too often the values stated in these attempts to defraud are massive, as they were in the present case. But that is not necessarily a sign of naive avarice on the part of the perpetrators of the scheme. In respect of a financial institution, for example, the greater the claim, the higher the risk and thereby the more compelling the temptation to offer a lesser amount in settlement. [4]18. Nor could the scheme masterminded by the applicant be dismissed as presenting no risk to the intended victim. The false documents employed by the applicant were meant to have been created in October 1948. That was a time of internecine struggle between forces of the Red Army and the Kuomintang, a time when Shanghai was flooded with refugees. An agreement purporting to have been made at that time, a time when banking records may have been lost or destroyed, may well have placed the bank in Hong Kong in difficulty in attempting to verify or disprove the existence of the debt. [5]19. In the circumstances, the judge was correct to ignore what Mr McGowan described as the sheer improbability of the scheme as a mitigating factor. [6]20. It was Mr McGowan’s second ground that, bearing in mind that the banks suffered no loss, the judge erred in taking as his starting point a figure in excess of three years, albeit by only three months. In this regard, he referred us to two judgments of this Court, differently constituted, in which sentences of three years, taken as the appropriate starting point for similar offences, were approved. The judgments concerned offences of using or possessing false instruments, in the one case a false bank draft, in the other fake US treasury bonds. There are, however, no guidelines for offences of this kind. Each case must be determined according to its own facts. In any event, taking into account that in the present case the starting point that was chosen was only three months more, we failed to see how, by that reason alone, it could be criticised as being manifestly excessive. [7]21. The maximum penalty for conspiracy to defraud is 14 years imprisonment: s. 159C(6) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200. Although there was no loss to the bank, taking into account that the applicant was the mastermind of an elaborately conceived attempt to defraud which was aggressively pursued, we were satisfied that the sentence of 39 months was appropriate. |
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case