香港特別行政區 訴 張麗華
Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the offending was objectively more serious than ordinary money‑laundering cases given the large sum (HK$7,000,000), frequency of transactions (39), receipt of payment and the applicant's expressed doubts about the funds' source; the three‑year investigation was...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] HKCA 346
- Parties
- Applicant: ZHANG LIHUA (張麗華); Respondent: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2019
- Case Number
- CACC344/2017
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal — Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
- Legal Topics
- Leave to Appeal, Sentence Severity, Delay and Inordinate Delay, Mens Rea, Evidence (bank Records)
- 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
ZHANG LIHUA (張麗華)
Applicant
The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal — Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal to Court of Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal against sentence should be granted
- 2 Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive given the amount and nature of offending
- 3 Whether delay in investigation justified any reduction in sentence
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the offending was objectively more serious than ordinary money‑laundering cases given the large sum (HK$7,000,000), frequency of transactions (39), receipt of payment and the applicant's expressed doubts about the funds' source; the three‑year investigation was not inordinate or prosecution‑caused; claimed medical effects lacked documentary support; and agreement with most prosecution facts did not compel mitigation.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal against sentence refused.
Orders
- Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed.
- Applicant warned that a re‑application may be restricted or penalised under Criminal Procedure Ordinance section 83W.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CACC 344/2017 [2019] HKCA 346 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 刑事司法管轄權 不服刑罰上訴許可申請 刑事上訴案件2017年第344號 (原區域法院刑事案件2017年第143號) __________________ 答辯人 香港特別行政區 對 申請人 ZHANG LIHUA (張麗華) __________________ 主審法官： 高等法院上訴法庭法官彭偉昌 聆訊日期： 2019年3月19日 判案日期： 2019年3月19日 判 案 書 申請人希望取得准許就刑期提出上訴。 正如我在庭上向代表她的大律師指出，這宗案件的情節較一般嚴重。理由是一，她短短三個月之內處理過與港幣700萬等值的美金，處理的次數多達39次，而且申請人在過程中取得報酬。二，申請人對這些金錢的來源是有保留和懷疑的，就正如她在錄影會面時提到，她曾因為怕而問過對方這些錢是否販毒所得。這和一般自稱在毫無警覺下犯上‘洗黑錢’罪的被告完全不同。在這個情況之下，根據過往的案例，因清洗等於700萬港幣的黑錢而以4年作量刑基準，是毫不為過的。 大律師另外提到的一點是延誤。他說原審法官應該但沒有因為這個理由而扣減申請人的刑期。不過，正如我在庭上指出而大律師又無法有效回應的是，這類案件涉及銀行，所以一般都需要更長的調查。以本案的案情而言，由於並非只涉及申請人，三年的調查期並不是英語所講的inordinate （過份）延誤，更何況延誤實非由控方造成。至於申請人據稱在這段時間因壓力而患上失眠、頭痛及需要接受精神科的治療，這無非是大律師在求情階段的口頭陳述，是完全沒有例如醫療報告等文件作支持的。 大律師也提到申請人在原審時同意了絕大部分控方案情。不過，案例指出，這並不一定構成減刑理由。這要視乎案件本身的案情、證據和被告人的辯護。在本案，絕大部分的證據都只是銀行家誓章，根本就不是辯方能夠駁斥的，而且接受所這些紀錄和申請人的辯護理由沒有抵觸，因為她只是聲稱自己沒有構成有關罪行的造意（即mens rea）罷了。在個這情況之下，同意控方的案情，只表示申請人沒有故意拖延程序，是不構成減刑理由的。 基於以上種種，我拒絕申請人獲得准許就她的刑期提出上訴。我亦向她發出了重新申請很可能會被減時的警告：《刑事訴訟程序條例》第83W條。 (彭偉昌) 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人： 由陳之文律師行轉聘鄧理桉大律師代表 答辯人： 由律政司高級檢控官吳卓樺女士代表