香港特別行政區 訴 朱靜遠

DCCC 332/2023

[2025] HKDC 1131

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2023年第332號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

1.  被告人被控一項「處理已知道或相信為代表從可公訴罪行的得益的財產」，違反香港法例第455章《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第25(1)  及 (3)條。涉案金額為5,025,394.29港元。

2.  經審訊後，被告人被裁定罪名成立。這是本席的判刑理由。

案情撮要

3.  本案的案情如下：

背景

(1)  2016年6月22日，女子「陳美玲」透過「臉書」（Facebook）社交平台認識了一位網上名叫「Kelvin Hui」的人士。2016年7月2日，該「Kelvin Hui」透過 WhatsApp 通訊軟件，告訴「陳美玲」他先父擁有石油公司，他急需金錢支付關於繼承他先父遺產的行政費用，答應「陳美玲」當他得到先父遺產後，便會和「陳美玲」結婚。因相信該「Kelvin Hui」的承諾，「陳美玲」於2016年7月2日至2018年2月1日期間，從受僱的公司（即「進滙策略（國際）有限公司」）盜取了港幣約2,000多萬元，用該筆盜取的款項，連同其他的款項轉賬 / 存進了388筆款項，共26,469,359港元到36個本地或海外的銀行帳戶。「陳美玲」後來發現被該「Kelvin Hui」欺騙，於是報案。警方調查後發現被告人是其中一個接收款項帳戶的擁有人。

(2)  被告人於2017年7月24日開設了一個香港上海滙豐銀行有限公司（滙豐銀行）的綜合銀行帳戶，號碼為023-630809-833（該帳戶）。2017年8月2日至2017年11月13日期間，「陳美玲」一共存進了28筆款項合計港幣1,672,300元到該帳戶。該些存進該帳戶的款項於存款當天或2-3天內，在馬來西亞被人從自動櫃員機分幾次、每次以較少的金額提走。

(3)  警方的進一步調查顯示，2017年7月27日至2018年2月23日期間，總共有81筆存款，合計港幣5,025,394.29元存入該帳戶及1,096次提款，合計港幣5,017,340.16元從該帳戶提取。警方留意到這些存款及頻繁較少金額的提款顯示了「洗黑錢」的模式，而所有提款都是在馬來西亞從自動櫃員機提取。

(4)  被告人的出入境紀錄顯示，2017年7月24日至2018年2月4日期間，她有3次離境前往內地或澳門的紀錄，另有一次於2017年11月29日從機場離境及於2017年12月6日回港的紀錄。

(5)  根據稅務局的報稅紀錄，2015年至2018年期間，被告人報稱的職業為「行政助理」，年薪約為港幣300,184元。

拘捕及警誡

(6)  被告人於2018年10月23日被警方拘捕。警誡下她承認該帳戶屬她持有，及她曾協助她的一名網上認識的朋友轉賬款項，以協助這朋友經營他的生意。

警誡錄影會面

(7)  在其後的警誡錄影會面中，被告人作出了包括以下的陳述：

(i)  她持有兩個滙豐銀行帳戶，一個是「運籌帳戶」（即該帳戶），另一個是「卓越理財帳戶」。

(ii)  該帳戶是為一名叫「Kelvin Cheung」的網上朋友開立，而他從未見過「Kelvin Cheung」真人或與他作電話交談。

(iii)  約於2017年6月或7月，她開始在「臉書」聊天室與「Kelvin Cheung」聊天，但她沒有保留該些聊天記錄。

(iv)  「Kelvin Cheung」告訴被告人，他在馬來西亞經營生意，但他不能來香港開立銀行帳戶。

(v)  「Kelvin Cheung」要求被告人在香港開立一個銀行帳戶，並把銀行提款咭郵寄給他。

(vi)  「Kelvin Cheung」答應給被告人報酬，但被告人表示不需要任何報酬。

(vii)  除了存款及提款外，所有該帳戶的操作由被告人進行。

(viii)  被告人沒有告訴「Kelvin Cheung」該帳戶的電話銀行密碼。

(ix)  當被告人收到「Kelvin Cheung」或滙豐銀行通知該帳戶收到美元存款時，被告人會利用電話銀行服務把該些美元款項兌換成港幣。

(x)  對於該些存進該帳戶的款項被迅即提取，被告人感到有些可疑。

(xi)  「Kelvin Cheung」聲稱，提取的款項用於支付員工薪金。

(xii)  對於誰存入該些款項及誰提取該些款項，被告人表示並不知情。

判刑原則

4.  「處理已知道或相信為可公訴罪行的得益的財產」是嚴重控罪，最高刑期為罰款500萬元及監禁14年。

5.  這類控罪的案情千變萬化，因此沒有量刑指引：HKSAR v Shing Siu Ming [1999] 2 HKC 818; HKSAR v Mak Shing [2002] HKCU 1109 (CACC 322/2001, 2002年9月18日）；HKSAR v Kamran [2005] HKCU 923 (CACC 400/2004, 2005年4月12日，未經彙編），HKSAR v Jain Nikhil and Another [2007] 2 HKC 205及HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 1 HKC 504。這類控罪嚴重之處，是犯案人嘗試將從可公訴罪行的得益變成合法的資金（Legitimise），因此需判處阻嚇性刑罰：HKSAR v Kamran（同上）。除非有極特殊的求情因素，就算是初犯者也需判處即時監禁：HKSAR v Choi Sui Hey [2008] 6 HKC 166; HKSAR v Boma （同上）；HKSAR v Ng Man Yee [2014] 4 HKC 241 及Secretary for Justice v Siu Yun Yee [2017] 3 HKLRD 678。

6.  涉案財產背後的可公訴罪行的性質並不重要。可是，如被告人知道財產來自極嚴重的控罪是加刑因素：HKSAR v Xu Xia Li and Another [2004] 4 HKC 16; HKSAR v Yam Kong Lai [2008] 5 HKLRD 384及Secretary for Justice v Choi Sui Hey （同上）。

7.  判刑時，法庭需考慮被告人處理的金額，而非被告人本人的得益：HKSAR v Wu Jianbing [2012] 1 HKLRD 781及HKSAR v Chen Zhen Chu [2007] 5 HKC 505。就算被告人全無得益也非減刑因素：Secretary for Justice v Ngai Fung Sin Apple [2013] 5 HKLRD 104。

8.  於 香港特別行政區 訴 許有益 [2010] 5 HKLRD 536，上訴法庭列出一些判刑時法庭需考慮的因素：

「9. 由於處理公訴罪行得益的財產這類案件會涉及不同的案情，故此法庭沒有定下量刑指引。但以下各點是量刑的參考因素：

(a)  涉案的金額是重要的考慮因素，而非被告人本身在這次交易所獲得的利益。

(b)  控罪的罪責是協助、支持及鼓勵有關的公訴罪行，故此被告人的參與程度及涉及「洗黑錢」的次數是有關連的因素。

(c)  處理公訴罪行得益的財產控罪與有關的公訴罪行不一定有直接關係，但若果有關的公訴罪行是可以確認的，那麼法庭是可以在處理控罪時考慮有關公訴罪行本身的刑期。

(d)  若案件涉及國際跨境成份，法庭可採用較嚴峻的刑期，以免香港作為國際金融及銀行中心的形象受損。

(e)  涉案的時間。」

9.  於HKSAR v Boma Amaso（同上），上訴法庭指：

“(1)  Given the highly variable circumstances in which the offence might be committed, it is difficult and undesirable to offer guidelines. This is a category of offence which calls for the sentencing judge to engage his “feel” for the case and his sentencing experience bearing in mind always the mischief at which the legislation was directed. The best one could do is to draw the attention of judges to relevant sentencing considerations. …

(2)  First, any sentencing exercise must recognize that the maximum sentence is 14 years’ imprisonment. Second, deterrence is paramount as the criminality in laundering arose from the encouragement and nourishment it gave to crime in general (R v Basra [2002] 2 Cr App R(S)  469 applied)  …

(3)  Third, the Director of Public Prosecutions should not feel constrained by prior judgments of the Court, which had created the perception that most cases should be tried in the District Court, from bringing cases in the High Court involving huge sums of money or where the predicate offence was particularly serious. The alternative, the exclusion of the High Court as a possible forum, brings distortions to justice …

(4)  Fourth, the question of the amount of money laundered was not the be-all and end-all of a case, but it was a significant feature …

(5)  Fifth, the Court should take into account some of the other significant features inter alia, (a)  the nature of the predicate offence; (b)  the state of the offender’s knowledge; (c)  where the operation involved an international dimension, this would be a significant aggravating feature; (d)  sophistication of the offence, including the degree of planning; (e)  where the offence was committed by or on behalf of an organized criminal syndicate would be an aggravated feature; (f)  whether there was one transaction or many and the length of time over which the offence was committed; (g)  whether the offender continue to launder funds after he had discovered the nature of the funds were proceeds of an offence or a serious offence was involved; (h)  the role of the offender and the act performed by him. The list was non-exhaustive. …”

10.  於律政司司長對雲國強 [2012] 1 HKLRD 197，被告人承認清洗黑錢罪（控罪一）及收受賭注罪（控罪二）。案情顯示被告人透過一名朋友（下稱X）的帳戶，在非法足球博彩網站替四名客人投注。輸錢的客人把款項存入被告人的銀行帳戶，而贏錢的客人則先由被告人向X收錢，然後以轉賬形式或親手把款項交給客戶。2002年至2009年期間，被告人的帳戶的提存次數分別是2,222次及1,696次，所涉總金額約為1,400萬元。原審法官認為被告人的洗黑錢罪行組織簡單，亦沒有集團操控，採納下列量刑基準和刑期減幅：(a)  控罪一：監禁21個月，但刑期因被告人認罪而扣減至14個月；及 (b)  控罪二：監禁3個月，但刑期因被告人認罪而扣減至兩個月。由於兩罪的案情重疊，因此法官下令上述刑罰同期執行。律政司司長申請覆核判刑，理由為控罪一的量刑基準明顯不足。上訴法院批准申請，改判被告人監禁兩年半，並列出一些法庭判刑時須考慮的因素：

「12. “洗黑錢”是嚴重罪行，原因是“洗黑錢”不但間接地鼓勵犯罪活動，更試圖把犯罪得益合法化。為了打擊嚴重罪行，避免犯案者獲得經濟利益，阻嚇“洗黑錢”罪行是必需的（見上訴法庭在香港特別行政區 訴 Javid Kamran (CACC 400/2004)、香港特別行政區 訴 Xu Xia Li 及另一人[2004] 4 HKC 16 等案）。

13. 一般而言“洗黑錢”罪行的判刑應主要反映清洗“黑錢”的數額 ，而非被告人或其他人的得益。原因是要證明有關得益，非常困難而在大多數“洗黑錢”案件亦可能沒有證據顯示“黑錢”究竟是從甚麼公訴罪行所生的。當然如有資料證明“黑錢”源自嚴重罪行，包括販毒、擄人勒索、非法販賣人口和其他有組織罪行等或被告人的得益極大，則判刑理應上調。

14. 本庭在其他多宗同類案件亦列出其他和判刑有關的因素，包括犯案的次數及犯案時間的長短、被告人參與和“黑錢”有關罪行的程度、罪行是否有組織及是否精密等等。

15. 在香港特別行政區 訴 許有益 [2010] 5 HKLRD 536案，上訴法庭張澤法官在判案書上列出多宗“洗黑錢”案件所涉的金額和判刑。當涉案“黑錢”是100至200萬元時，量刑基準約為3年，300萬元至600萬元約為4年，而1,000萬元以上則可超過5年。

16. 本案的“黑錢”源自非法收受足球博彩賭注，而非特別嚴重的罪行。答辯人的罪行，包括其收受賭注罪行的組織亦非嚴密。根據答辯人的招認，他從罪行取得的金額亦非巨大，不超過15萬元。本庭同意以“洗黑錢”罪行而言，本案並非是十分嚴重的一宗。

17. 但本庭不能忽視答辯人在長達7年期間“洗黑錢”，次數以千計，而總額更達1,400萬元，本庭亦不能忽視答辯人清洗的“黑錢”源自他有份參與的收受賭注罪行。

18. 本庭同意司長的立場，認為原審時葉法官就“洗黑錢”罪所採納的21個月量刑基準明顯不足，是遠低於一名有將全部有關因素考慮在內的法官會合理地認為是適當的（見Lord Lane CJ在AG’s Reference No.4 of 1989 [1990] 1 WLR 41案在判案書46頁A行所表達的驗證準則）。」

被告人的背景

11.  被告人現年59歲，案發時51歲。 她於1983年中五畢業後一邊工作，一邊於香港大學專業進修學院修讀秘書及行政管理文憑課程。1988年，被告人修讀由「Upper Iowa University」於香港舉辦的遙距課程，並於1990年畢業及取得管理學學士學位。多年來，被告人於不同公司任職秘書或文職工作。被定罪前，她於一間名為「Healthcare Staffing Solutions Limited」的公司任職辦公室經理（office manager），月入約港幣三萬元。

12.  被告人和丈夫於2006年結成夫婦。丈夫現年67歲；兩人育有一子。被定罪前，被告人與丈夫及兒子同住。兒子於2007年出生，現年18歲，下一個學年準備升讀大學。2008年，被告人丈夫被公司辭退，之後沒有再找工作，留在家中照顧兒子。自此，被告人成為家庭經濟支柱。2022年，丈夫確診患上前列腺癌，於同年進行手術，現時大致康復，但仍需定期複診。被告人母親現年84歲，獨居。被告人是母親的獨女，兩人感情緊密。

13.  被告人以往沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄。

討論

14.  大律師指與控罪相關而有實際交易的時段只有3個月22日，犯罪時間不算太長。大律師續指，雖然涉案總額合共港幣5,025,394.29元，被告人只將6次的貨幣存款兌換成港幣（合共港幣1,109,240.90元）。因此，被告人實際透過操作去處理款項的金額佔總存款的比例不高。

15.  本席不敢苟同。控罪的涉案時段為2017年7月17日至2018年2月23日。根據香港法例第455章《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》第2條，「處理」（dealing），就第15(1)或25條所提出的財產而言，包括：—

(a)  收受或取得該財產；

(b)  隱藏或掩飾該財產（不論是隱藏或掩飾該財產的性質、來源、所在位置、處置、調動或擁有權或與其有關的任何權利或其他方面的事宜）；

(c)  處置或轉換該財產；

(d)  將該財產運入香港或調離香港；

(e)  以該財產借貸，或作保證。（不論是藉押記、按揭或質押或其他方式）。

16.  根據雙方承認的事實第6段，2017年8月2日至2017年11月13日期間，「陳美玲」共存入28筆款項，合共港幣1,672,300元。證供顯示，2017年7月28日至2018年2月23日期間，共有81筆存款，合共港幣5,025,394.29元及1,096次提款，合共港幣5,017,340.16元。被告人接收存款已構成「處理」黑錢。有實際交易的犯案時段最少為2017年7月28日至2018年2月23日（即約7個月）。涉案行為並非單一交易。於7個月內，已有81次存款及1,096次提款。

17.  大律師續指，本案「洗黑錢」的手法並不涉及繁複的步驟、計劃或詐騙手段。戶口的模式簡單，款項存入戶口後，便在馬來西亞分多次被提取，沒有涉及迂迴的處理手段令款項難以追尋。雖然被告人曾六次將存入涉案戶口的外幣兌換成港幣，但這只屬簡單操作。案中證據顯示款項不可能由被告人提取；被告人只是提供了涉案戶口予「Kelvin Cheung」使用，用作接收存款及提供提款咭給「Kelvin Cheung」於馬來西亞提款。本案中沒有證據顯示被告人提供戶口予「Kelvin Cheung」以外的人作提存；亦沒證據顯示有否其他犯案人士、他們的組織及規模。

18.  大律師亦指，沒有證供顯示被告人知道「前置罪行」的性質及涉案「黑錢」的來源。因此，與明知道相關「前置罪行」是什麼及明知道涉案款項為「黑錢」的人相比，被告人的罪責較低。大律師亦指，沒有證據顯示被告人涉及或以任何形式參與「前置罪行」或與「Kelvin Cheung」或使用「Kelvin Cheung」身份的人或集團有任何關連；更沒有顯示被告人獲得任何形式的報酬、獎勵或利益。大律師再指，沒有證供顯示被告人於發現涉案款項為「黑錢」後仍繼續處理該款項。因此沒有加刑因素。

19.  大律師亦指，證供顯示被告人很大程度上是因受到情感影響，應「Kelvin Cheung」的要求及 / 或被「Kelvin Cheung」利用，才開設涉案戶口，並將提款咭寄給「Kelvin Cheung」。因此，被告人在本案的角色較為被動，比起存心借出戶口獲取報酬，並對戶口交易不聞不問的情況相比，罪責較輕。

20.  本席同意本案的「洗黑錢」計劃並不複雜，亦沒有證供顯示「Kelvin Cheung」背後組織的規模。除了「Kelvin Cheung」之外，只有一名負責收取提款咭的外籍人士。可是，本席不能漠視被告人是專誠設立涉案戶口去處理涉案的黑錢；就算「Kelvin Cheung」的說法千瘡百孔，只要「Kelvin Cheung」表現不悅，被告人便不作追問；而於開始「洗黑錢」前，分別兩間銀行的職員向被告人表示，將戶口借給他人使用是違法行為，被告人仍聽若罔聞。被告人不只開設戶口給「Kelvin Cheung」使用，還負責將外幣兌換成港幣，罪責比單單借出戶口的人嚴重。本案涉款超過500萬，金額可觀。本席認為，適當的量刑基準為3年半監禁。

21.  另外，證供顯示，部份存款為外匯，而所有提款均於馬來西亞進行。因此本案涉及跨國元素，而這是嚴重的加刑因素。因此，本席將量刑基準上調6個月（即量刑起點為4年監禁）。

減刑因素

22.  被告人是經審訊後被定罪，全無悔意，不可獲得認罪的扣減。

23.  被告人的丈夫、兒子、母親、上司及同事於求情信中均異口同聲指被告人為人和善、樂於助人、有責任感、做事專業及不遺餘力，多年來為其家庭付出，不求回報，辛勤工作，以照顧家人。

24.  大律師指被告人過往一直努力進修、工作，為家人付出，亦受到上司及同事尊重及信任。被捕後，被告人面對檢控的煎熬仍態度積極及正面，繼續工作及照顧家人。大律師要求法庭考慮，判處被告人監禁，被告人將會與一直相依為命的丈夫、兒子及媽媽分離。考慮到被告人的背景，她的重犯機會極低，予以輕判。

25.  眾所周知，面對嚴重控罪時，被告人的個人及家庭背景，判刑對家人的影響均並非減刑因素。Sentencing in Hong Kong 11^th Edition指出：

“[30-130] Family circumstances are often prayed in aid in mitigation by convicted persons. However, ‘family hardship which is usually attendant upon the conviction is to be viewed as a part of the price an accused must pay for the crime’: HKSAR v Li Kwok-ching [2005] HKCU 1702 (HCMA 1132/2005, 30 November 2005, unreported). Those who commit offences should keep in mind ‘the principle that the adverse effect of imprisonment upon an offender’s family is not a factor normally to be taken into account’: HKSAR v Chan Kin-chung [2002] 4 HKC 314, 321. Family circumstances, in any event, ‘are matters which a wise man would take into consideration before he commits an offence and not after’: HKSAR v To Yiu-Cho [2009] 5 HKLRD 309, 311 … If a family really faces hardship as a result of the offender’s imprisonment, it ‘can always ask for the help of the Social Welfare Department should a need arise’: HKSAR v Thapa Kishan [2013] 4 HKC 524, 527.

[30-131] An accused must appreciate that his family will suffer ‘if he is caught and convicted’: R v Shipra [1988] HKC 412 …In HKSAR v Shum Chung-wai [2002] 2 HKLRD 81, 87, Luger-Mawson J said: ‘This court has said many times that family circumstances should be disregarded, particularly when sentences for serious offences are concerned’. When a robber sought early release so he could look after his sick wife, this was refused by Poon JA, because he ‘knew full well of her circumstances when he committed the present offence’: HKSAR v Thapa Krishna Kumar [2023] HKCU 5053 …”

26.  大律師亦指出，被告人之前沒有刑事定罪紀錄。可是，這亦非減刑因素。Sentencing in Hong Kong 11^th Edition 指出：

“[7-3] if an accused has a clear record, this may indicate that his crime is ‘completely out of character’: R v Law Cheuk-lung [1997] HKCU 404 (CACC 9/1997, 20 June 1997, unreported). If so, this may be of particular relevance to sentencing if the accused is of advanced years. That a 71-year old accused had been a hard-working family man who had committed no prior criminal offences and had made some positive contribution to society was something which attracted credit in Secretary for Justice v Wong Hong-Leung [2010] 1 HKLRD 226, 235 …

[7-5] In R v Chan Ka-choi [1988] 1 HKLR 530, 534 … the traditional approach of the courts to the issue of clear record was explained:

Once the offender had been found guilty of the offence, the court must, leaving aside person circumstances and previous record, make an assessment as to the proper sentence to be imposed given the type of offence and the circumstances of its commission. When this had been done, the court must give credit for absence of previous convictions and for personal circumstances.

[7-6] Credit for a clear record is, however, by no means a given. Much will depend upon the nature of the offence and the position of the offender. In HKSAR v Law Num-chun [2014] 6 HKC 606, 617: Lunn VP said:

[T]he principle is that good character is not a factor relevant generally to determining the starting point to be taken for sentence in serious criminal offences for which a deterrent sentence is required.

[7-7] Those involved in commercial fraud must expect immediate imprisonment, save in exceptional circumstances: HKSAR v Ho Ka-keung (No.2) [2009] 1 HKC 88, 92. Serious white-collar crime attracts condign sentences: R v Pantano (1990)  49 A Crim R 328, 30 …

[7-18] The relevance of good character is related to the circumstances of the accused. Good character sometimes refers to no more than an absence of previous convictions, and this is not a basis for an additional discount: HKSAR v Wong Kam-shing, Jackie [2010] 4 HKC 580, 584 … The mere absence of criminal convictions must not be confused with positive good character, and the simple discharge of duties in a proper manner ‘does not constitute what is to be regarded as positive good character’: HKSAR v Leung Ping-nam [2007] 5 HKC 413, 427; HKSAR v Chung Ka-hung [2010] HKCU 738 (CACC 349/2008, 31 March 2010, unreported).

[7-23] If the court decides that the offence is such as to require a deterrent sentence, it may be necessary to select a higher starting point. The clear record of the accused will not, that is, affect the starting point for sentence: HKSAR v Lam Ying-yu [2014] 2 HKLRD 895 … In such circumstances, perhaps because of the magnitude of prevalence of the offence and the need for deterrence, the personal circumstances of the accused will count for little. In Re Applications for Review of Sentence [1972] HKLR 370, 406, Huggins J said:

Of course there will be classes of case where the public interest so manifestly calls for a deterrent sentence that only most exceptional circumstances relating to the offender could outweigh the need to deter others, but we must never rule out that such exceptional circumstances may arise.

[7-24] Examples of offences in respect of which the courts have concluded that exemplary sentences are appropriate include: …

(9)  Money laundering: Secretary for Justice v Siu Yun-yee [2017] 3 HKC 454;…”

27.  大律師指被捕後，被告人並沒自我放棄，繼續盡力工作及照顧家人。Sentencing in Hong Kong 11^th Edition指出：

“[30-62] The way in which the accused has conducted himself since he committed the offence may sometimes affect sentence. If there is ‘clear evidence of rehabilitation’ this may have relevance: FGC v Western Australia (2008)  183 A Crim R 313, 341 …; R v Wong Hung-biu (CACC 579/1988, 9 March 1989, unreported). …

[30-63] A discount, however, is by no means a given, … Absent a ‘character change or moral conversion’, the mere absence of criminality by an accused over the years since the offence may not avail him: HKSAR v Yamin [2017] HKCU 3086 (CACC 360/2016, 1 December 2017, unreported). Something more substantial will normally be required.

[30-64] In R v Tutty [1998] 3 NZLR 165, 168, Thomas J said:

While, therefore, a delay between the offending and sentencing is not in itself significant, matters which have transpired during the time may be pertinent. … his conduct over the years may count in his favor. He may have faced up to and acknowledged his problem, demonstrated genuine remorse, obtained counselling or treatment where necessary, or in some other way, sought to reform himself and atone for his earlier misdeeds. He may have obtained assistance for his victim. He may have made amends in many ways and be able to show that he has led an exemplary life since his early offending. In all such cases it is these factors rather than the lapse of time in itself which will be taken into consideration on sentencing. While in such circumstances the need for deterrence in the case of the offender him or herself may have diminished or disappeared altogether, the need for a sentence which will serve as a general deterrent to such offending remains. So, too, the need for a sentence to mark society’s denunciation and abhorrence of such offending is unaffected.…”

28.  大律師指，本案中被告人同意了整個控方案情，節省了法庭大量時間，要求法庭仿效 許有益 案，酌情給予扣減。另外，大律師指被告人於 2018 年被捕，經歷了六年半的煎熬才被定罪。

29.  Sentencing in Hong Kong 11th Edition 指出：

“[30-83] In Mills v HM Advocate and The Advocate General for Scotland 2002 SCR 860, 877, Lord Hope said that a delay in bringing the accused to justice is widely recognizable as a mitigating factor that can be taken into account when he is being sentenced.

[30-84] This usually arises where the prosecution is at fault for the delay: HKSAR v Lau Kin-Yu [2003] HKCU 251 (HCMA 391/2002, 13 March 2003, unreported). Such a delay might cause the accused to be ‘under the strain of legal proceedings for a very long time’: Attorney General v Ling Kar-fai (No.2) [1997] 2 HKC 651, 654. If the accused is himself responsible for the delay, he cannot expect to benefit: HKSAR v Chan Chun-chuen (CACC 233/2015, 30 October 2015, unreported).

[30-85] In Secretary for Justice v Schmitt [2008] HKCU 979 (CAAR 12/2006, 17 June 2008, unreported), Stuart-Moore VP noted that there is a delay in every case before trial, and that the ‘real question is whether there has been an unreasonable delay, through no fault of a defendant, which has contributed to his punishment’. The court will also need to be satisfied that the delay has ‘resulted in unfairness to the accused’: R v L (1995)  84 A Crim R 142, 145. If there is a delay, resulting from a very extensive (and necessary)  investigation, the accused cannot expect to benefit therefrom: Secretary for Justice v Ip Hon-ming and Anor [2015] 1 HKC 143, 168.

[30-86] In HKSAR v Law King-yip and Ors [2004] HKCU 1391 (CACC 369/2003, 14 October 2004, unreported), (as approved in HKSAR v Cheung Suet-ting [2010] 6 HKC 249, 257), complaint was made, by one of several persons convicted of conspiracy to defraud, about the delay of over 30 months between the date of arrest and trial. It was further argued that the trial of 108 hearing days had constituted an additional hardship, ‘worse’, so it was said, ‘than prison’. In rejecting these factors as mitigation, the court commented that the delay had to be viewed in the context of the size of the investigation that the police had to conduct. The conspiracy had lasted for more than a year, there were many victims, expert witnesses had to be consulted, and the prosecution was not at fault for the delay. The trial had been listed for 20 days, but overran because the defence had vigorously contested the case. In these circumstances, Lunn J said the court was satisfied that ‘neither the delay in the commencement of proceedings nor the length of the trial itself are factors relevant to the sentence imposed’.

30.  本案涉及超過500萬「黑錢」、81項存款及1,096項提款，部份存款是外滙，並非所有提存都與陳美玲有關，調查需時。況且，辯方從沒指本案的延誤不合理。本席不予以任何扣減。可是考慮於審訊中被告人同意整個控方案情，本席酌情減刑一個月。因此，本席下令判處被告人47個月監禁。