香港特別行政區 訴 马爱华

DCCC 148/2025

[2026] HKDC 871

香港特別行政區

區域法院

刑事案件2025年第148號

________________________

________________________

________________________

判刑理由書

________________________

1.  被告人承認一項「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。

案情撮要

2.  被告承認的經修訂案情撮要內容如下：

(i)  被告是持有往來港澳通行證的內地中國居民。

(ii)  2024 年 5 月 16 日，被告人身在香港。他進入渣打銀行（香港）有限公司（渣打銀行）的德輔道中 188 號分行，要求開立個人銀行帳戶作個人儲蓄用途。被告在開戶過程中出示法團成立表格，表格載有虛假陳述，指被告是香港公司開設「星環網絡科技有限公司」的董事（虛假陳述）。

(iii)  之後，被告的個人渣打銀行帳戶（號碼：259-8-617926-1）成功開立（被告帳戶），他是唯一簽署人。被告簽署開戶授權書，該授權書載述被告獲星環網絡科技有限公司僱用為董事，月入港幣 60,000 元。

(iv)  同日，被告帳戶的登記電郵地址由 “AIHUA19856@163.COM” 轉為 “CXYL0420@126.COM”，而該電郵地址經由渣打銀行確認為傀儡戶口的電郵地址。

(v)  其後，渣打銀行的詐騙風險管理團隊於公司註冊處下載「星環網絡科技有限公司」的 NNC1 文件，發現該公司董事為楊冠星，渣打銀行發現上述虛假陳述。

(vi)  由 2024 年 5 月 16 日至 2024 年 5 月 21 日（包括首尾兩日），共有 4 筆總額港幣 623,589 元的存款存入被告帳戶，也有 4 筆總額港幣 227,548.1 元的提款。

(vii)  2024 年 5 月 27 日，被告帳戶被渣打銀行暫時凍結。

(viii)  2024 年 6 月 4 日下午 12 時 08 分，被告到訪渣打銀行的德輔道中 4 號分行。被告查詢被告帳戶凍結的原因，並要求從帳戶提取所有款項。案件報警處理。被告於下午 1 時 45 分被拘捕。

(ix)  同日稍後，被告與警方進行警誡會面，承認在內地就讀至中一並任職裝修工人。被告拒絕回答所有其他問題。

(x)  被告於 2024 年 5 月 16 日至 2024 年 5 月 27 日期間（包括首尾兩日），知道或有合理理由，相信他銀行帳戶的港幣 623,589 元款項，全部或部份、直接或間接代表任何人才可公訴罪行的得益而仍處理該款項。

被告的背景

3.  被告現年 40 歲，於內地任職裝修工人。他過往在香港沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄。於經歷供詞中，被告聲稱曾接受中學程度教育，但大律師指被告只曾在內地接受至中一程度教育。於經歷供詞中，被告聲稱未婚及獨居，但大律師指被捕前，被告人與 80 歲的母親及 39 歲的妻子同住。

判刑原則

4.  「處理已知道或相信為從可公訴罪行的得益的財產」是極嚴重的控罪，最高刑罰為罰款 500 萬元及監禁 14 年。雖然沒有量刑指引（HKSAR v Shing Siu Ming [1999] 2 HKC 818; HKSAR v Mak Shing [2002] HKCU 1109； HKSAR v Kamran [2005] HKCU 923; HKSAR v Boma Amaso [2012] 1 HKC 504)  ，法庭須判處具阻嚇性刑罰（HKSAR v Hui Kam [2000] 3 HKLRD 211；HKSAR v Kamran（同上）；HKSAR v Ng Man Yee [2014] 4 HKC 241）。

5.  刑期視乎案情而定。財產的來源對判刑並不重要，但如被告人知悉財產源自嚴重罪行是加刑因素，就算是初犯也需即時監禁（HKSAR v Xu Xia Li and Another [2004] 4 HKC 16； Secretary for Justice v Choi Sui Hey [2008] 6 HKC 166； HKSAR v Siu Yuen Yee [2017] 3 HKC 454）。

6.  於 香港特別行政區 訴 許有益 [2010] 5 HKLRD 536，上訴法庭指被告人本身在這次交易所獲得的利益並非量刑的因素，並指明一些判刑可考慮的因素：

「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分，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像受損。

(e)  涉案的時間。」

7.  於 HKSAR v Boma （同上），上訴法庭指：

“25. The problem remains that the circumstances in which the offence may be committed are highly variable. They run from cases where a wife hides money for a husband who is a gambler through to those who wash money that represents the proceeds of vice offences, or trafficking in dangerous drugs, or fraud, or human trafficking or other manifestations of organised crime. Sometimes it is possible to identify the antecedent offence; other times it is not. Sometimes the offender knows the nature of the antecedent offence, sometimes he does not. Sometimes he can be taken to know or believe the monies to be the proceeds of an indictable offence or reckless as to whether or not they were; otherwise he may be shown to know the grounds upon which a reasonable person will so believe without himself actually knowing the funds to be the proceeds of an indictable offence. Sometimes the offender is the perpetrator of the predicate offence but at other times he lies somewhere down the chain. Sometimes he is the beneficiary of the laundering process; other times a conduit. Then there are cases involving an organized and sophisticated scheme where the offender is the director of the laundering exercise; or he may be a lowly employee in the exercise. The offence may involve a single transaction or, on other hand, many transactions over an extended period. Deceit to achieve the objective may or may not be involved. There are cases where all the activity is embraced in a domestic setting but other cases with an international element. This non-exhaustive postulation of the variety of circumstances suffices to illustrate why it is difficult and undesirable to offer guidelines. It is, in other words, a category of offence in which the sentencing judge is called upon to engage his ‘feel’ for the case bringing to bear his sentencing experience bearing in mind at all times the mischief at which the legislation is directed.

…

32. At present, however, any sentencing exercise must recognise that the maximum sentence is one of 14 years’ imprisonment …

35. The first factor to which any sentencing court should in this context have regard is the maximum penalty available. It is not possible to identify the worst case possible and difficult to postulate the worst category of case. But it is nonetheless helpful to bear the maximum in mind.

36. The second matter to which the sentencing court must have regard is the fact that in this category of offence, deterrence is paramount. It is to be remembered that “the criminality in laundering arises from the encouragement and nourishment it gives to crime in general. Without it many crimes would be rendered much less fruitful and perhaps more difficult to perpetrate”: R v Basra [2002] 2 Cr App R (S)  469 at 472 2…

38. Then there is the question of the amount of money laundered. This is not the be-all and end-all of a case but is a significant feature …

40. Less helpful though this may be than we had hoped, the best we can therefore do is to identify some of the significant features for which the court should look and take into account, though it is not possible to produce an exhaustive list: we can do no better than echo obvious factors that have been referred to by the cases:

(1)  The nature of the predicate offence, if known, and the penalty available for the predicate offence …

(2)  This brings us to the question of the state of knowledge of the offender. This divides itself in two – knowledge of the nature of the predicate offence, where the predicate offence is known to the court; and knowledge of the fact that the funds are the proceeds of an indictable offence:

(b)  As to the second question, there seems to me to be unassailable logic in the scheme of the Australian legislation which draws a distinction in culpability between the person who intentionally deals with the proceeds of crime, meaning the person who knows or believes that the funds in question are the proceeds of crime; the person who is reckless as to that question; and the person who is negligent about it. The legislation makes it a criminal offence to deal with proceeds of an indictable offence where there are grounds to believe that that is the origin of the funds and the offender knows of the grounds, even where the offender does not positively know that the funds originate from the commission of such an offence, so care must be taken in the last category not thereby to dilute sentencing so as to defeat the object of the legislation; but the person who is reckless is more culpable and the person who knows or believes is more culpable still.

(3)  An international dimension will always be a significant aggravating feature; and by international dimension we include money laundered from, or for those operating in, the Mainland.

(4)  The sophistication of the offence is always relevant. This will include the degree of planning and whether deceit is practised to achieve the objective.

(5)  Where the offence is committed by or on behalf of an organized criminal syndicate, that is an aggravating fact.

(6)  It is relevant to take into account whether there is one transaction or many and the length of time over which the offence was committed.

(7)  As in the case of Herzberg, it will be an aggravating feature where the offender continues to launder funds after he has discovered as a fact that the funds are the proceeds of an offence or after he has discovered the nature of an offence which is serious.

(8)  The sentencing court should have regard to the role of the offender and the acts performed by him. In this regard, the director of a laundering operation or scheme should attract a greater sentence than a person engaged by him although sentences should be sufficient to deter those who might be prevailed upon by directing minds. In the case of a person down the chain, the court will wish to have regard to whether a benefit has been received and if so the nature and size of the benefit. But within the category of persons down the chain there will gradations of culpability. So for example the drug addict or petty crook who is paid a small sum to open an account and hand over its operation to another with no more participation and no more knowledge than that it is going to be used for some sort of crime is much less culpable than an offender of a different sort not “used” in that way.”

8.  於 律政司司長 訴 雲國強 [2012] 1 HKLRD 197，上訴法庭指，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。上訴法庭於 香港特別行政區 訴 廖麗婷（CACC 334/2015 未經𢑥編，2016 年 4 月 18 日）補充「雖然上述（雲國強）的量刑基準不是判刑指引，但具參考價值。」

討論

9.  大律師力陳，本案並非同類型最嚴重案件。大律師指被告在內地經朋友介紹下接觸了策劃本案的犯罪團夥。被告獲團夥指示到香港辦理信用卡；團夥承諾會向被告支付報酬，金額視乎結果而定。犯罪團夥派人陪同被告來港開立銀行戶口，並聲稱開立戶口是辦理信用卡的流程之一。於是，被告便應要求開立了涉案戶口。

10.  於陳詞中，大律師指被告按犯罪團夥開立涉案戶口後，便將「戶口交予犯罪團夥」，似乎是指被告只是將涉案戶口交給他人，被告沒有參與該戶口的運作。於是本席要求大律師就 HKSAR v Salim [2014] 6 HKC 678 及 律政司司長對谢志建（Xie Zhijian）CAAR 4/2024 [2025] HKCA 911 作陳述及詢問大律師被告的認罪答辯是否穩妥。大律師指被告將銀行戶口號碼給予犯罪團夥作存款之用，被告則負責按團夥的指示從涉案戶口提款。大律師明確地表示被告人負責戶口的運作。

11.  本席不接受被告部份的解釋。首先，除了於 2024 年 5 月 16 日開設涉案戶口外，根本沒有任何證供顯示被告作出信用卡的申請。戶口開設後數天（2024 年 5 月 20 及 21 日） 便收到數十萬元存款，而首筆存款的絕大部份的存款（99.76%）於 同日（2024 年 5 月 20 日）已被提取。

12.  無論如何，本案中沒有任何證供顯示前置罪行（predicate offence）的性質，亦沒有任何證供顯示被告對前置罪行性質知情。考慮到涉案金額，本席認為適當的初步量刑基準為 2 年 6 個月監禁。

加刑因素

13.  可是，本案中有多個明顯的加刑因素。

14.  被告是國內居民，專誠來港犯案。這是加刑因素。Sentencing in Hong Kong 11^th Edition指出：

“[1-98] If an offender comes to Hong Kong from the Mainland on a two-way permit specifically to commit serious crime, this will constitute an aggravating factor: HKSAR v Chan Chun-yee [2001] 3 HKC 605, 608.”

15.  法庭必須判處阻嚇性刑罰，確保來港人士不會在港犯案：HKSAR v Ali Saif [2018] 6 HKC 19。加刑的副度必須具阻嚇功效：HKSAR v Butt Muhammad Gulzar [2020] 3 HKLRD 805。被告亦承認為國內的犯罪團夥犯案。換言之，被告知悉是替國內的犯罪集團「洗黑錢」，涉及國際元素：見 Boma案第 40(3)  段。

16.  被告亦承認，本案的控罪是有策劃的。開戶時，被告帶備「星環網絡科技有限公司」的法團成立表格，而表格載有虛假陳述，即被告是該公司的董事。被告是利用欺詐手段及虛假文件開設涉案戶口。換言之，被告不但知悉涉案金額是犯罪得益、他是協助有組織的犯罪集團及犯案手法涉及欺詐手段。這亦是加刑因素：見 Boma案第 40(4)  及 (5)  段。

17.  因此，本席將量刑基準上調 9 個月，即 3 年 3 個月 （39 個月）監禁。

減刑

18.  大律師指本案的求情因素包括：

(i)  被告適時認罪，表現悔意及節省法庭時間；

(ii)  涉案金額為 623,589 港元，但 396,160.60 港元（即總金額的 63.53%）被起回；

(iii)  被告犯案時間很短；

(iv)  被告沒有刑事定罪紀錄。

19.  被告適時認罪，可獲三分一的扣減，即刑期減為 26 個月監禁。於 HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKC 231，上訴法庭已指明，該折扣已是最高分水線（high watermark），涵蓋悔意及其他所有的求情因素；除非有極特殊的求情因素，否則不應予以額外扣減。

20.  被告於 2024 年 5 月 16 日至 5 月 27 犯案。可是，這是全因渣打銀行發現被告的虛假陳述而凍結戶口所致。事實上，2024 年 6 月 4 日，被告前往銀行要求提取所有款項。

21.  大律師指涉案的 396,160.60 元被起回。這全因涉案戶口被銀行凍結。本案中，沒有資料顯示前置罪行的性質或受害人身份。受害人取回涉案金額的機會極度渺茫。

22.  被告人在香港沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄。Sentencing in Hong Kong 11^th Edition指出：

“[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 …

[7-14] The practice of the courts in recent times has been to give an accused who pleaded guilty a sentencing discount of one-third: HKSAR v LO Chi-yip and Anor [2000] 3 HKLRD 270…. The accused who pleads guilty at the outset will receive a full discount irrespective of whether he has a criminal record, is caught red-handed or is genuinely remorseful. Since the ‘one-third rule’ has solidified into principle, there is no scope for a further discount, save in exceptional circumstances, such as where assistance is provided to the authorities. In HKSAR v Yan Wai-ming [2003] HKCU …, Stuart-Moore VP said:

In the days before the discount of one-third on timely pleas of guilty became standard practice, previous good character used to be one of many factors which judges would take into account in deciding what discount to give on a plea of guilty. The one-third discount is usually, as we have said on numerous occasions, to be taken as the high watermark of the discount unless there are very special factors to be taken into account.

[7-15] In Secretary for Justice v Ko Wai-kit [2001] 3 HKLRD 751, 757 … Stock JA said that the ‘lack of previous convictions will often be subsumed in the credit given for a plea of guilty’. In Secretary for Justice v Lee Cho-keung and Ors [2004] 4 HKC 179, 189, the court noted that ‘the established course is now to view the presence of good character as part and parcel of the one-third discount given upon a plea’. The ‘element of good character is normally taken as being included in the one-third discount for a plea of guilty’: Secretary for Justice v Tso Tsz-kin [2004] 2 HKC 139, 144. In HKSAR v Cheng Kelly Kit-yin [2014] 4 HKLRD 34 …, Barma J said ‘the one-third discount for a plea of guilty is the discount to be afforded even to those with clear record … In Secretary for Justice v Cheng Tse-hin [2020] 1 HKC 576 … a judge who awarded a two-month sentencing discount to an accused who had been convicted of dangerous driving causing death for his clear record and perfect driving record was held to have erred …

[7-16] The judge who granted an accused who pleaded guilty an additional discount of three months’ imprisonment ‘to take account of her [hitherto] good character’, was said to have erred in Secretary for Justice v Chau Wan-fun [2007] 1 HKC 423, 428 … The discount for a guilty plea already has ‘built into it an allowance for good record where there is one’: HKSAR v Yung Wai-siu [2001] 1 HKLRD 277, 279 … The withholding of an additional discount for a clear record ‘has not been a valid ground of appeal for a considerable time’: HKSAR v Yan Wai-ming [2003] HKCU 264 … In this context, a clear record is not so much a mitigating factor as a ‘neutral feature in the case’: HKSAR v Wen Zelang [2006] 4 HKLRD 460 …

[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 …”

23.  一言蔽之，本案中除了適時認罪外，根本沒有其他求情因素。因此，本席判處被告 26 個月監禁。