香港特別行政區 訴 蔡鳳岐
Given the totality of the evidence and the applicant's failure to provide any explanation, the only reasonable and irresistible inference was that the applicant had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of crime; therefore the convictions for two counts of money laundering were safe and the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 997
- Parties
- Respondent: 香港特別行政區; Applicant: 蔡鳳岐 (TSOI FUNG KEI)
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 28 August 2019
- Case Number
- CACC207/2018
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Conviction Appeal (leave Application) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction Dismissed by Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
- Legal Topics
- Money Laundering, Proceeds of Crime, Evidence and Inference, Banking Fraud, Leave to Appeal
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
香港特別行政區
Respondent
蔡鳳岐 (TSOI FUNG KEI)
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal (leave Application) / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction Dismissed by Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the conviction for two counts of money laundering was safe
- 2 Whether the applicant had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of crime (knowledge/mens rea)
- 3 Whether the absence of an explanation by the applicant permits an adverse inference to sustain conviction
Ratio Decidendi
Given the totality of the evidence and the applicant's failure to provide any explanation, the only reasonable and irresistible inference was that the applicant had reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of crime; therefore the convictions for two counts of money laundering were safe and the application for leave to appeal was refused.
Court Disposition
application for leave to appeal against conviction refused
Orders
- Leave to appeal against conviction refused
- Convictions for two counts of money laundering upheld
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 207/2018 [2019] HKCA 997 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 定罪上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2018年第207號 (原區域法院刑事案件2017年第856號) 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 蔡鳳岐 (TSOI FUNG KEI) 主審法官: 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長楊振權 聆訊日期: 2019年8月28日 判案書日期: 2019年8月28日 判案書 以下是本席就申請人(蔡鳳岐)針對定罪提出的上訴許可申請的簡單裁決。 申請人在2002年收購Prime Signal Limited(Prime Signal)和Point Will Limited(Point Will),並成為兩間公司的唯一董事和股東。申請人為Prime Signal和Point Will在香港滙豐銀行開設帳戶,而申請人亦是該些帳戶的唯一授權簽署人。 但Prime Signal和Point Will在香港從來沒有領取商業登記,亦從來沒有向稅務局提交任何稅務文件。 2009年5月,申請人亦為Prime Signal和Point Will在美國滙豐銀行開設帳戶,而在約一個月後,有12張空頭支票其總額近700萬美元由四間美國公司存入Prime Signal和Point Will的美國滙豐銀行帳戶。資料顯示,除了上述12張空頭支票外,只有另外兩張支票由上述四間美國公司中的兩間存入過Prime Signal和Point Will的美國滙豐銀行帳戶,而該兩張支票涉及的款項只是數千美元。 沒有資料顯示Prime Signal及Point Will和該四間美國公司有任何生意往來。 根據證人曾錫成的說法,是有人以全費另加零用錢保送他前往美國開設該四間美國公司。 申請人在上述12張空頭支票存入Prime Signal和Point Will的美國滙豐銀行帳戶後,在極短時間內將款項轉到Prime Signal和Point Will的香港滙豐銀行帳戶。申請人能成功轉帳是因為美國滙豐銀行有一個未兌現支票便預先放款的做法。 當款項成功轉帳到Prime Signal和Point Will的香港滙豐銀行帳戶後,申請人便立刻將全部可以提取的630萬港元先轉帳到他名下的其他銀行帳戶。其後,申請人立刻再以現金提取全數款項並在翌日離開香港。申請人沒有企圖處理已在帳戶內的1,500萬港元。 雖然滙豐銀行職員有立刻知會申請人有關款項是詐騙罪行所得,並要求他退還,但申請人不為所動並失去聯絡長達8年。 和申請人進行錄影會面時,警員有向申請人查詢每一筆以空頭支票存入Prime Signal和Point Will美國滙豐銀行帳戶的款項,申請人都表示“唔知道”、“唔清楚”、“唔記得”。他沒有指該些款項是代客人收取的貨款,亦沒有作出任何其他解釋。 無爭議的證據顯示,申請人以現金提取630萬港元,並立刻離開香港時,他的經濟狀況極為差劣。他不但是負債累累,不能供養母親,而其住房更已被銀行收回。 本席認為以案件的整體案情,在申請人沒有作供或提出任何證據以解釋、削弱或反駁控方的指控時,推論申請人在處理涉案的款項時,有合理理由相信該些款項是“黑錢”是唯一合理和無可抗拒的。 本席認為裁定申請人兩項“洗黑錢”罪罪名成立是穩妥的裁決。申請人未能說服本席他提出的上訴理由有可爭拗的地方,更遑論有成功的機會。 因此,本席不批准申請人就定罪提出的上訴許可申請。 (楊振權) 高等法院上訴法庭副庭長 答辯人: 由律政司高級檢控官伍淑娟代表。 申請人: 由法律援助署委派黃萃群律師行轉聘大律師莊君如代表。