The Commercial Crime and Corruption Unit, which was first established in 1984, is

headed by Dr Alain Sham, a prosecutor of 26 years’ experience in the Prosecutions

Division. This Sub-division consists of six sections. Each section is headed by a

Senior Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions or an Assistant Director of Public

Prosecutions, who is specialised and responsible for the effective supervision of legal

advice on, and prosecution of, complex commercial and revenue fraud, securities

market misconduct, corruption, money laundering, copyright and trademark,

cybercrime and cases investigated by the Customs and Excise Department.

Experienced public prosecutors in the Sub-division work together with relevant law

enforcement agencies in Hong Kong and in close liaison with their counterparts in

the rest of China and at an international level to ensure Hong Kong's status and

reputation as a major international commercial and financial centre is maintained.

A description of the work of each section and a highlight of some notable cases

handled by counsel in the Sub-division during the year are set out below.

商業罪案及貪污組最初在 1984 年成立，現時

的主管是沈仲平博士，沈博士擔任刑事檢控科

檢控官長達 26 年。本分科設有六組，各由一

名高級助理刑事檢控專員或助理刑事檢控專員

掌管，負責有效監督就每組的特定範疇提供法

律指引和執行檢控，這些範疇包括複雜的商業

及稅務詐騙、證券市場失當行為、貪污、洗黑

錢、版權及商標、電腦網絡罪行，以及香港海

關 調 查 的 案 件 。 分 科 內 的 檢 控 官 經 驗 豐 富 ，

他們與本港的有關執法機關緊密合作，並與中

國內地其他地區及世界各地的檢控人員保持緊

密聯繫，確保香港作為一個重要的國際商業及

金融中心的地位及聲譽維持不變。

下文闡述本分科各組的工作簡介和分科內律師

在本年所處理的一些值得注意的案件。

34

Section IV (1) – Major Fraud

This Section, led by Ms Maggie Yang, is

responsible for major commercial fraud cases

primarily investigated by the Commercial

Crime Bureau of the Hong Kong Police Force.

The area of work covers money laundering,

bank fraud, credit card fraud, listing fraud,

and fraud perpetrated on individuals and

private companies. The six prosecutors of

this Section provide legal advice and conduct

trials and appeals in sensitive cases that often

attract media attention.

White collar crime often involves complex

legal issues with voluminous documents

to peruse. In giving advice to the law

enforcement agency, counsel in this

Section spend a great deal of time and

effort meticulously examining documentary

evidence, in close connection with experts

(such as forensic accountants in major

money laundering cases) and the police.

In 2012, there was a huge upsurge in

money laundering cases arising from

lottery or email fraud where victims from

multiple jurisdictions were deceived. Quite

often, the account holders were foreigners

or mainlanders who were paid to set

up companies and open bank accounts

in Hong Kong for the sole purpose of

receiving proceeds of crime. In HKSAR

v Bhatty Manoj Chainman Rai DCCC

1108/2012, the defendant came to Hong

Kong from India to set up a company and

分科四第 1 組 — 嚴重詐騙案件

本組由楊美琪女士掌管，主要負責處理

由香港警務處商業罪案調查科調查的嚴

重商業詐騙案件。本組的工作涉及多個

範疇，包括洗黑錢、銀行詐騙、信用卡

詐騙、上市詐騙，以及對個人和私人公

司的詐騙。本組 6 名檢控官提供法律指

引，並處理常受傳媒關注的敏感案件的

審訊及上訴工作。

“白領”罪行往往涉及複雜的法律問題和

大量的文件。本組律師為執法機關提供

法律指引時，須與專家（例如在處理嚴重

洗黑錢案件時會聯絡法證會計師）及警方

緊密聯繫，並要耗費大量時間和心血，

仔細研究文件證據。

在 2012 年，有關獎券活動或電郵詐騙

的 洗 黑 錢 案 件 激 增 ， 案 中 有 多 個 司 法

管轄區的受害者受騙。某些外國人或內

地人，獲他人給予款項在香港設立公司

和開設銀行帳戶，目的只是用銀行帳戶

收取犯罪得益。在香港特別行政區 訴

Bhatty Manoj Chainman Rai （區院刑事

案件 2012 年第 1108 號）一案中，被告

由印度來港設立一間公司和開設一個銀

行帳戶，用以清洗合共約 6,000 萬元。

他在區域法院承認一項洗黑錢控罪，被

判處監禁 32 個月。

一些洗黑錢案件的犯罪者在干犯盜竊或

行騙後，利用親友的銀行帳戶清洗犯罪

得益，藉以隱瞞其罪行。在香港特別行

政區 訴 彭鴻輝 （區院刑事案件 2011

年第 895 號）一案中，被告被裁定一項

洗黑錢罪罪名成立。被告的好友郭是一

間上市公司的前任主席，被告按照郭的

指 示 ， 用 他 公 司 的 銀 行 帳 戶 收 取 一 筆

1,400 萬元的款項。該筆款項是郭先前

對該上市公司進行詐騙所得。被告其後

把整筆款項匯到郭在柬埔寨的公司銀行

帳戶。被告經審訊後被判處監禁 2 年 6

個月。

在其他案件中，有自稱匯款代理人的被

告容許他人利用其銀行帳戶用作移轉款

項的渠道，因而被控以洗黑錢罪名。

本組在 2012 年除了處理大量洗黑錢案

件外，亦處理多宗嚴重詐騙案件。在香

港特別行政區 訴 曾潤平及另一人（區

院刑事案件 2012 年第 153 號）一案中，

兩名被告（丈夫及妻子）詐騙破產欠薪保

open a bank account which was used to

launder a sum of about $60 million. He

pleaded guilty to one count of money

laundering in the District Court and was

sentenced to 32 months’ imprisonment.

Some money laundering cases involved the

use of friends’ or relatives’ bank accounts

to launder proceeds of crime after the

commission of theft or deception offences

in order to conceal the crime. In HKSAR

v Pang Hung Fai DCCC 895/2011, the

defendant was convicted of one count

of money laundering for allowing his

company’s account to receive a sum of

$14 million as instructed by his close friend

Kwok who was the ex-chairman of a listed

company. The fund had been embezzled

by Kwok after his fraudulent act was

perpetrated on the listed company. The

defendant subsequently remitted the whole

sum to Kwok’s company bank account in

Cambodia. He was sentenced to two years

and six months’ imprisonment after trial.

There were other cases where self-claimed

remittance agents, who allowed their

bank accounts to be used as a conduit in

a money transmission process, were also

prosecuted for money laundering.

Apart from a large number of money

laundering cases, this Section handled a

number of serious fraud cases in 2012.

In HKSAR v Tsang Yun Ping and another

DCCC 153/2012, the defendants (husband

Section IV (1) – Major Fraud

分科四第 1 組 — 嚴重詐騙案件

35

Prosecutions Hong Kong 香港刑事檢控

2012

and wife) perpetrated fraud on the

Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund

(PWIF), the case having been referred to

the Police by the Labour Department.

During the liquidation of the numerous

restaurants operated by the defendants,

instead of allowing the liquidator to take

possession of the equipment, furniture

and fixtures, the defendants dishonestly

concealed them from the liquidator. They

continued to use them for the renamed

new restaurants (operated at the same

premises) and defaulted in payment of the

overdue wages owed to the employees

who were then re-employed in the new

restaurants. The employees were left to

make claims for their overdue wages under

the PWIF. A total of about $2 million was

paid out of PWIF after the liquidation of the

restaurants. After trial, the 1st defendant

(husband) was found guilty and was

sentenced to 3 years’ imprisonment and

the 2nd defendant (wife) was acquitted.

Other significant cases handled by this

Section which attracted publicity in 2012

are set out below.

In HKSAR v Tse Man Lai DCCC 1318/2011,

the defendant hacked into the website of

the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing

Limited by sending a large amount of

attacking packets from his computer to

the website. He did so for the purpose of

promoting his computer software business.

He was charged with two counts of

obtaining access to computer with criminal

or dishonest intent. He was convicted after

trial in the District Court and sentenced to

9 months' imprisonment.

In HKSAR v Wong Yuk Ling ESCC

459/2012, the defendant was a clerk

of the Customs & Excise Department

responsible for inputting data into a

confidential computer system called

STREAMS (Suspic ious Transact ion

Report and Management System). On

11 occasions between late March 2008

and mid-December 2010, she accessed

STREAMS by using her password to see if

there was any report filed against her and

her family members who were registered

remittance agents. The checks were not

authorized by her supervisors. At trial, the

only issue was whether the defendant had

the requisite mental state when she was

障基金（“破欠基金”）。勞工處把案件轉

介警方處理。被告所經營的多間酒樓先

後清盤，在清盤時被告不誠實地向清盤

人隱瞞有關的設備、家具及固定裝置，

而沒有讓清盤人接管該等資產，以便在

重 新 命 名 的 新 酒 樓（ 在 相 同 處 所 經 營 ）

繼續使用。被告並在新酒樓重新僱用先

前的員工，但沒有清付員工之前的未發

薪金，員工唯有自行向破欠基金申索欠

薪。破欠基金在這些酒樓清盤後發放的

款項共達約 200 萬元。第一被告（丈夫）

經審訊後被裁定有罪，被判處監禁 3 年，

第二被告（妻子）被判無罪釋放。

下文為本組在 2012 年處理備受廣泛報道

的其他重要案件。

在香港特別行政區 訴 謝文禮 （區院刑事

案件 2011 年第 1318 號）一案中，被告

用自己的電腦向香港交易及結算所有限

公司的網站發放大量攻擊小包，從而入

侵該網站，目的是藉此推廣自己的電腦

軟件業務。他被控兩項有犯罪或不誠實

意圖而取用電腦罪，在區域法院審訊後

被定罪，被判處監禁 9 個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 黃玉玲（東區裁

判法院刑事案件 2012 年第 459 號）一

案 中 ， 被 告 是 香 港 海 關 的 文 員 ， 負 責

把數據輸入名為可疑交易報告管理系統

的機密電腦系統。在 2008 年 3 月底至

2010 年 12 月中期間，她先後 11 次用

其個人密碼登入該系統，查看是否有針

對她及她具註冊匯款代理人身份的家人

的報告。她查閱這些資料並未得到上司

授權。審訊中的唯一爭議點是被告因患

上“適應障礙、抑鬱及焦慮症”，是否具

有控罪所需的心理狀態。控辯雙方援引

專家證據。法院在審訊後最終裁定被告

罪名成立，判處 140小時的社會服務令。

除處理上述範疇的罪案外，本組亦與本

司司法互助組緊密合作，處理針對已逃

離本港的犯罪者的引渡申請，並就這類

申請提供法律指引。一旦在其他司法管

轄區尋獲逃犯，本組即會詳細覆核和審

視有關案件指控該逃犯的證據，以預備

引渡申請。

年內，本組人員亦與外地其他司法管轄

區的檢控人員分享經驗。2012 年 9 月，

楊美琪女士向肯尼亞共和國刑事檢控專

suffering from “adjustment disorder with

depression and anxiety mood”. Expert

evidence was adduced by both parties.

The defendant was finally convicted after

trial and sentenced to do 140-hours’

community service.

Apart from handling all these areas of

crime, this Section works closely with

the Mutual Legal Assistance Unit of our

Department to handle and advise on

the applications of extradition against

offenders who have escaped the

jurisdiction. The evidence of the case

against the fugitives has to be thoroughly

reviewed and assessed once they are

located in other jurisdictions in order to

prepare for the applications for extradition.

During the year, the Section members were

also involved in sharing their experiences

with counterparts from foreign jurisdictions.

In September 2012, Ms Yang gave a briefing

to delegates from the Office of the Director

of Public Prosecutions of the Republic of

Kenya on prosecuting commercial crime

cases in Hong Kong.

Section IV (2) – Securities Fraud, Inland Revenue and Commercial Fraud

Hong Kong is an international commercial

and financial centre. It is vital that

its prosecuting authority is honed to

prosecute commercial fraud, securities

market misconduct and revenue fraud

cases. Section IV(2) has the primary

responsibility of providing legal advice on

cases investigated by the Securities and

Futures Commission (SFC), the Inland

Revenue Department (IRD) and, alongside

Section IV(1), the Commercial Crime

Bureau (CCB) of the Hong Kong Police

Force. It also prosecutes as far as possible

the related trials and appeals.

In 2012, this small Section of four

prosecutors received 114 requests for

advice from the CCB, 35 from other police

formations, 18 from the SFC, six from

the IRD and five from other government

departments or another division of the

Department.

The Section was also involved in work

relating to the Securities and Futures

(Amendment) Bill 2011 which was passed in

2012. A major change to the Securities and

36

員辦公室代表團就香港檢控商業罪案事

宜作簡介。

分科四第 2 組 —

證券詐騙、稅務及商業詐騙案件

香港是國際商業及金融中心，檢控機關

在檢控商業詐騙、證券市場失當行為及

稅務詐騙案件方面，必須訓練有素，技

巧純熟。分科四第 2 組的主要職責，是就

證券及期貨事務監察委員會（“證監會”）

和稅務局調查的案件提供法律指引，以

及聯同分科四第 1 組，就香港警務處商業

罪案調查科調查的案件提供法律指引。

此外，本組亦盡可能處理相關的檢控和

上訴聆訊。

本 組 是 一 個 有 四 名 檢 控 官 的 小 組 ， 在

2012 年接獲有 114 宗來自商業罪案調查

科要求提供法律指引的案件，其他警隊

單位則有 35 宗，證監會 18 宗，稅務局

六宗，來自其他政府部門或律政司另一

分科共 5 宗。

本 組 亦 參 與 有 關《2011 年 證 券 及 期 貨

（修訂）條例草案》的工作，該條例草案

已在 2012 年通過。《證券及期貨條例》

的主要修訂在 2012 年 5 月 4 日實施。

在此之前，證監會須把巿場失當行為個

案 提 交 財 政 司 司 長 考 慮 是 否 在 巿 場 失

當行為審裁處（“審裁處”）展開研訊程

序；現時，證監會獲賦權在取得律政司

司長的同意後，直接在審裁處展開研訊

程序（《證券及期貨條例》第 252 條及第

252A 條）。

根 據《 證 券 及 期 貨 條 例 》， 證 監 會 可 以

以本身名義在裁判法院就該條例所訂罪

行 提 出 檢 控 。 根 據《 基 本 法 》第 六 十 三

條，律政司主管刑事檢控工作，為配合

其主導職能，證監會把所有市場失當行

為案件轉交刑事檢控科，以考慮是否適

宜提出刑事檢控和在哪一個級別的法院

進行檢控。本組可視乎案情建議證監會

在裁判法院循簡易程序進行檢控，並處

理往後的上訴。如果本組不建議提出刑

事檢控，證監會便可以在審裁處展開研

訊程序。

在 2012 年，本組一如既往處理了多宗

涉 及 市 場 失 當 行 為 罪 行 的 案 件 。 在香

港特別行政區 訴 李佳林（區院刑事案

件 2010 年 第 1282 號 ）一 案 中 ， 被 告

which were controlled and operated by

him. On 11 trading days, 128 transactions

were carried out in these accounts. Of these

transactions, 67 were wash sales which did

not generate any economic benefit but had

the effect of creating a false and misleading

appearance of active trading in the VST

shares. As a result, the price of VST shares

on each of the 11 days was up from one

to eight spreads. The defendant also failed

as required to notify VST and the Hong

Kong Stock Exchange of his interest in

those shares within three working days of

acquisition. He was convicted after trial of

10 charges of price rigging and on his own

pleas of 16 charges of failure to perform

a duty of disclosure within the specified

period. He received a total of 6 months’

imprisonment for the price rigging charges,

a total fine of $240,000 for the remaining

charges, a disqualification order under

section 303(2)(a) of SFO for 1 year and a

costs order of $168,282.

In HKSAR v Chui Wing Nin Simon ESS

27729 & 27730/2011, the defendant, a

senior employee working in the finance

department of CITIC Pacific, engaged

in insider dealing by selling his CITIC

Pacific shares ahead of the profit warning

announcement issued by CITIC Pacific.

He was found guilty of two charges of

insider dealing. He received a sentence of

15 months’ imprisonment, a total fine of

Futures Ordinance (SFO) became effective

on 4 May 2012. Whereas previously

the SFC had to refer cases of market

misconduct to the Financial Secretary to

consider commencing proceedings in the

Market Misconduct Tribunal (MMT), it is

now empowered to have direct access to

the MMT after having obtained the consent

of the Secretary for Justice (sections 252

and 252A of the SFO).

Under the SFO, the SFC may prosecute

offences under the SFO in its own name

before the Magistrates’ Courts. To give

primacy to the Department of Justice’s

control of criminal prosecutions in

accordance with Article 63 of the Basic

Law, the SFC refers all cases of market

misconduct to the Prosecutions Division

to consider the suitability and venue of a

criminal prosecution. Depending on the

circumstances of the case, the Section

may advise the SFC to conduct summary

prosecutions in the Magistrates’ Courts

and to handle subsequent appeals. If no

criminal prosecution is recommended,

MMT proceedings may be instituted.

In 2012, the Section continued to handle

cases involving market misconduct

offences. In HKSAR v Li Jialin DCCC

1282/2010, the defendant traded, between

August 2007 and April 2008, in the shares

of VST Holdings Ltd via three accounts

Section IV (2) – Securities Fraud, Inland Revenue and Commercial Fraud

分科四第 2 組 — 證券詐騙、稅務及商業詐騙案件

37

Prosecutions Hong Kong 香港刑事檢控

2012

$1,018,855, a disqualification order from

being a director for 3 years and an order to

pay investigation costs of $228,469.

In Fu Kor Kuen Patrick and another v

HKSAR FACC 4/2011, the two appellants

traded in a number of derivative warrants

at the same price back and forth over

a period of more than 13 months. The

volume of their trade ranged from 50%

to 75% of the day trade volume of the

warrants in question, thus giving a false

or misleading appearance of active trading

which was prohibited under section 295(1)

of the SFO. By such trading, they made a

profit from a commission rebate scheme

offered by a bank. They were convicted of

20 counts of false trading. Their conviction

appeals were dismissed by the Court of

Appeal. They appealed to the Court of

Final Appeal, one of the issues being the

scope of the statutory defence under

section 295(7). In May 2012, the Court

of Final Appeal held that the legislative

intent under section 295(7) was to impose

a persuasive burden of proof as opposed

to an evidential burden on a defendant

to show, on a balance of probabilities,

an innocent purpose of the proscribed

conduct. Since at least a primary purpose

that was not the proscribed purpose,

namely to make a profit from the

commission rebate scheme, existed, the

appeals were allowed.

The Section also handled a number of

fraud cases in 2012. In HKSAR v Mok Chi

Tat DCCC 388/2012, the defendant who

was a watch repairer of a luxury watch

shop in Tsim Sha Tsui, stole and pawned

watches which clients brought in for repair

or which were awaiting collection after

repair. When a client came to collect his

watch which had been pawned by the

defendant, he would pawn another watch

in order to redeem that client’s watch and

return it to the client. The stolen watches

were worth about $6 to 7 million. The

defendant obtained about $3 million

through pawning them. He pleaded guilty

to five charges of theft and was sentenced

to imprisonment for 4 years and 2 months.

In HKSAR v Ma Bo Kee and others CACC

458/2010, publicly listed company Moulin

Global Eyecare Holdings Co Ltd., which was

the biggest wholesaler and manufacturer

of spectacles in the world, collapsed due

to a fraud perpetrated by its directors

and senior officers. The losses sustained

by creditor banks and shareholders

approximated $2.7 billion and $1.7 billion

respectively. Ma was convicted after trial

of one charge of conspiracy to publish

a false statement and two charges of

在 2007 年 8 月至 2008 年 4 月期間透過

他操控的三個戶口買賣偉仕控股有限公

司（“偉仕控股”）的股票。他在 11 個交

易日利用這些戶口進行了 128 項交易，

其中 67 項是虛假銷售，這些銷售並沒有

任何實質經濟利益，但卻造成偉仕控股

股票交投活躍的虛假及具誤導性表象，

結果偉仕控股的股價在這 11 日全都推高

一至八個價位。此外，被告沒有按規定

在取得偉仕控股股份權益後的三個工作

日內，向偉仕控股和香港證券交易所作

出通知。他經審訊後被裁定十項操控價

格罪罪名成立，他又承認 16 項沒有在指

定期間履行披露責任罪。法院就操控價

格罪判處被告監禁共 6 個月，其餘控罪罰

款共 24 萬元，並根據《證券及期貨條例》

第 303(2)(a) 條發出取消資格令，有效期

1 年，同時發出訟費命令，令被告支付

168,282 元。

在香港特別行政區 訴 崔永年 （東區裁判

法院傳票 2011 年第 27729 及 27730 號）

一案中，被告是中信泰富財務部的高級

職員，他在中信泰富發出盈利警告前進

行內幕交易，沽出中信泰富股票。法院

裁定被告兩項內幕交易罪罪名成立，判

處監禁 15 個月及罰款共 1,018,855 元。

法院又發出取消資格令命令被告在 3 年內

不得擔任董事，並命令被告支付調查費

228,469 元。

在傅果權及另一人 訴 香港特別行政區

（終院刑事上訴 2011 年第 4 號）一案中，

兩名上訴人在超過 13 個月內，以同一價

格來回買賣數隻衍生認股權證，有關的

交易量佔該認股權證當日交易量的 50%

至 75% 不等，因而造成交投活躍的虛假

或具誤導性表象，屬《證券及期貨條例》

第 295(1) 條禁止的行為。他們透過這些

交易，從一間銀行提供的佣金回扣計劃

賺取利潤。他們被裁定 20 項虛假交易

罪罪名成立。他們不服定罪提出上訴，

遭上訴法庭駁回，其後他們再向終審法

院提出上訴，其中一個上訴爭議點是關

於第 295(7) 條法定免責辯護所涵蓋的範

圍。2012 年 5 月，終審法院裁定，第

295(7) 條的立法原意，是向被告施以具

說服力的舉證責任，而非援引證據的舉

證責任，被告須按相對可能性的衡量標

準，證明他所作出法例禁止的行為並非

出於法例禁止的目的。由於案中有至少

一個主要目的，即從佣金回扣計劃賺取

38

Section IV (3) – ICAC (Public Sector)

分科四第 3 組 — 廉政公署案件（公營機構）

利潤，而這並非法例禁止的目的，法院

因此裁定上訴得直。

本組在 2012 年亦處理多宗詐騙案件。

在香港特別行政區 訴 莫志達（區院刑

事案件 2012 年第 388 號）一案中，被告

是尖沙咀一間名貴鐘錶店的鐘錶維修技

師，他把客戶送來維修或維修後待領的

手錶偷去典當，而當客戶前來取回手錶

時，被告便把另一枚手錶典當以贖回相

關的手錶，將之交回客戶。案中被偷取

的手錶共值約 600 萬至 700 萬元，被告

典當手錶獲取大概 300 萬元。被告承認

五項盜竊罪，被判監禁 4 年 2 個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 馬寶基及其他人

（刑事上訴 2010 年第 458 號）一案中，

曾 是 全 球 最 大 的 眼 鏡 製 造 及 批 發 商 的

上市公司泰興光學集團有限公司，因董

事及高層職員的詐騙行為而倒閉，導致

債權人銀行損失約 27 億元，股東損失

約 17 億元。馬寶基經審訊後被裁定一項

串謀發表虛假陳述罪及兩項串謀欺詐罪

罪名成立，被判監禁共 12 年。馬寶基的

兒子（第二申請人）承認三項相同控罪，

並承認另一項串謀欺詐罪，被判處監禁

共 10 年。第三申請人承認同一項串謀

發表虛假陳述罪、三項串謀欺詐罪及兩

項串謀製造虛假文書罪，被判監禁共 9

年半。三名申請人針對判刑提出上訴，

上訴法庭維持馬寶基及其兒子的判刑，

但將第三申請人的監禁刑期減至 8 年半。

分科四第 3 組 —

廉政公署案件（公營機構）

刑事檢控科轄下有兩組負責就廉政公署

（“廉署”）調查的案件提供法律指引和進

行檢控。廉政公署（公營機構）組由溫淑

芳女士掌管，組內有六名檢控官，專責

就公營機構的貪污罪行及選舉罪行提供

法律指引。

在 2 0 1 1 年 1 1 月 舉 行 區 議 會 選 舉 和

2012 年 11 月 9 日舉行立法會選舉後，

本組處理與選舉相關的案件相應大幅增

加。廉署在 2012 年接獲的 2,413 宗與

選舉有關的舉報中，2,377 宗有足夠資

料展開調查，當中 1,611 宗在 2012 年

內完成調查。

本組與廉署緊密合作，致力打擊貪污。

在 2012 年，本組就 46 宗廉署（公營機

Eventually, five defendants were convicted.

The court found that the defendants’

fraudulent acts had damaged the interests,

character and reputation of the HKJC. Three

of the defendants subsequently applied for

leave to appeal against conviction and/or

sentence.

In HKSAR v Ng Shuk Yi (D1) and Lai

Sau Wai (D2) DCCC 1279/2011, two

former correctional services officers were

prosecuted for bribery offences and

attempted fraud. D1 assisted an inmate

to relay messages to her boyfriend, and

thereafter solicited branded handbags,

diamonds and gold jewellery from the

boyfriend. By using various false pretences,

D1 also solicited over half a million dollars

from the inmate or her boyfriend. D2

was in charge of the institution in which

the inmate was assigned to do cleaning

work. D2 contacted the inmate’s boyfriend

and undertook to update him on the

inmate’s situation while in prison and to

relay messages to the inmate. In return,

D2 asked the boyfriend to procure the

award of an elevator contract of a property

development project in China to D2’s

friend. D2 also solicited and accepted a

notebook computer from the boyfriend.

D1 was convicted after trial of one

count of prescribed officer soliciting an

advantage and three counts of attempted

fraud. D1 was sentenced to a total term

of 18 months’ imprisonment. D2 was

also convicted after trial of one count of

public servant soliciting an advantage and

one count of public servant accepting an

advantage. She was sentenced to a total

of 21 months’ imprisonment.

In HKSAR v Fan Yung Cheong DCCC

261/2012, an Assistant Director of the

Lands Department pleaded guilty to five

counts of agent using false instrument

to deceive principal. The defendant was

entitled to Private Tenancy Allowance

(PTA). An applicant of PTA, however,

is not eligible for PTA in relation to an

accommodation which is owned by himself

or his relative or in which he or his relative

has a financial interest. For a period of

over 7 years, the defendant applied for

and was granted PTA to the sum of about

$1.6 million. However, he concealed his

ownership of the subject premises from

conspiracy to defraud. He was sentenced

to a total of 12 years’ imprisonment. His

son, the second applicant, pleaded guilty

to the same three charges together with

another charge of conspiracy to defraud.

He was sentenced to a total of 10 years’

imprisonment. The third applicant pleaded

guilty to the same charge of conspiracy to

publish a false statement, three charges

of conspiracy to defraud and two charges

of conspiracy to make false instruments.

She was sentenced to a total of 9½ years’

imprisonment. On appeal against their

sentences, the Court of Appeal upheld the

sentences imposed on Ma and his son and

reduced the third applicant’s sentence to

one of 8½ years’ imprisonment.

Section IV (3) – ICAC (Public Sector)

The Prosecutions Division has two sections

to advise on and prosecute ICAC cases.

The ICAC (Public Sector) Section was

headed by Ms Polly Wan. There were six

prosecutors in the Section who specialized

in providing legal advice on public sector

corruption offences and electoral offences.

The District Council Election and the

Legislative Council Election were held

in November 2011 and on 9 November

2012 respectively. Hence, the electoral

case portfolio of the Section had increased

significantly. In 2012, out of the 2,413

election-related complaints received by the

ICAC, 2,377 were pursuable and 1,611 had

their investigation completed within 2012.

The Section worked closely with the

ICAC in the fight against corruption. In

2012, 46 ICAC (public sector) cases were

prosecuted, of which 19 were election-

related cases handled by ICAC.

During the year, the Section was responsible

for the prosecution of an array of offences

involving corruption, serious misconduct

and electoral offences. In HKSAR v Ng Ka

Ki, Robert and others DCCC 810, 813 &

934/2011, 10 defendants were charged and

brought to court in relation to fraudulent

applications for membership with the Hong

Kong Jockey Club (“HKJC”). The offences

involved were soliciting and accepting

advantages for providing corrupt assistance

in membership applications, money

laundering and conspiracy to defraud.

39

Prosecutions Hong Kong 香港刑事檢控

2012

Section IV (3) – ICAC (Public Sector)

分科四第 3 組 — 廉政公署案件（公營機構）

the Hong Kong Government. The court

sentenced the defendant to eight months’

imprisonment for each count, to run

concurrently but suspended the sentences

for two years.

In HKSAR v Wong John DCCC 694 of 2011,

the defendant was convicted after trial of

two counts of misconduct in public office

and two counts of false accounting. The

defendant was the Head of the Department

of Surgery (“DoS”) and person-in-charge of

the Skills Development Centre (“SDC”) of

the University of Hong Kong. He had used

public funding from the bank accounts of

SDC to pay for the salaries and employment

related payments of his domestic helper cum

personal driver. On being aware of SDC’s

administrative assistant’s embezzlement

of money from the bank accounts of SDC

to the sum of not less than $2.67 million,

instead of reporting to the university, the

defendant helped the assistant to conceal

the theft by lending her money to make

repayment in part. He also allowed the

assistant to resign unpunished and hence

she was able to receive full payment under

the Staff Provident Fund. In addition,

the defendant had also used duplicate

invoices of travelling expenses paid by the

university to claim tax deductions for his

own company. The defendant was ordered

to serve 240 hours’ community service for

all the charges. He has applied for leave

to appeal against conviction and sentence

while the prosecution has applied to review

his sentence.

Numerous cases involving electoral offences

were prosecuted in 2012. These cases

involved submission of voter registration

forms (“VRFs”) which contained false

residential addresses to Registration

and Electoral Office (“REO”) to secure

registration in the Final Register of the

relevant Constituencies. Prosecution had

been brought against 12 electors who had

not voted, 10 of whom pleaded guilty while

one was convicted after trial. Prosecution

for Engaging in corrupt conduct at an

election was also brought against 45

electors who had provided false address

in VRFs and voted while two others faced

charges of conspiracy to defraud. Of these,

31 were convicted on their own pleas whilst

10 were found guilty after trial. The great

majority of the sentences ranged from 2 to

4 months’ immediate imprisonment.

In 2012, there were also important appeals

on election and corruption cases. In Kan

Brian Ping Chee v HKSAR HCMA 48/2012,

the appellant, a famous retired horse

trainer, appealed against his conviction of

one count of engaging in corrupt conduct

at an election. He offered $130,000 in cash

to an elector with a view to inducing the

elector to vote for him at the Sheung Shui

District Rural Committee Election 2011. He

was convicted after trial and sentenced to

3 months and 2 weeks’ imprisonment. His

appeal against conviction was dismissed.

He has applied for leave to appeal to the

Court of Final Appeal while the Secretary

for Justice also sought a review of the

sentence imposed by the trial magistrate.

In HKSAR v Chan Chi Wan Stephen (R1)

and Tseng Pei Kun (R2) CACC 103/2012,

the Secretary for Justice sought to case

state the trial judge’s decision to acquit R1

and R2, who were the General Manager

(Broadcasting) of Television Broadcasts

Limited (“TVB”) and the director and

shareholder of an advertising and

production company respectively. Three

corruption offences were laid against either

or both of them. The application for case

state was premised primarily on the basis

that the trial judge had erred in finding that

(1) R1 was not an agent of TVB when he

performed in TVB’s own production and

broadcast of a live New Year Countdown

show on New Year’s Eve (“the live show”)

and (2) R1 had got implied consent from

TVB to accept advantage for performing

in the live show. The Court of Appeal

quashed the trial judge’s acquittal of the

three charges and remitted the case back

to the trial judge to consider the issue of

“reasonable excuse”. The trial judge found

that R1 had reasonable excuse to accept

the advantage and both R1 and R2 not

guilty as charged. The Secretary for Justice

has lodged an application to case state the

trial judge’s decision to acquit R1 and R2.

In Secretary for Justice v Lee York Fai and 4

others CAAR 3/2011 and HKSAR v Chiang

Sai Cheong and 3 others CACC 171/2011

(heard together), the Secretary for Justice

successfully sought a review of all the

defendants’ sentences after their conviction

構）調查的案件提出檢控，其中 19 宗是

與選舉有關的案件。

年內，本組檢控了多宗涉及貪污、嚴重

不當行為及選舉罪行的案件。在香港特

別行政區 訴 吳家麒及其他人（區院刑事

案件 2011 年第 810、813 及 934 號）一

案中，十名被告因以欺詐方式申請香港

賽馬會會籍而被起訴，涉及的罪行包括

索取和接受利益以圖協助申請會籍作舞

弊、洗黑錢及串謀欺詐。五名被告最終

被裁定罪名成立。法庭認為，被告的欺

詐行為損害了香港賽馬會的利益、特色

及聲譽。其中三名被告其後就定罪及／

或刑罰申請上訴許可。

在香港特別行政區 訴 吳淑怡（第一被

告）及黎秀慧（第二被告）（區院刑事案件

2011 年第 1279 號 ) 一案中，兩名前懲教

署人員被控賄賂及企圖欺詐罪。第一被告

協助一名女犯人把信息轉達她的男友，之

後向該男友索取名牌手袋、鑽石和金飾，

又以虛假藉口向女犯人或其男友索取逾

50 萬元。第二被告是懲教院舍的主管，

上述女犯人獲分派在該院舍做清潔工作。

第二被告聯絡女犯人的男友，承諾會告知

他女犯人在監獄內的近況，並向女犯人轉

達信息，但要求她男友替第二被告的友人

取得內地一個地產發展項目的升降機工程

合約作為回報，又向該男友索取並收受一

部筆記簿電腦。第一被告經審訊後被裁定

一項訂明的公職人員索取利益罪及三項企

圖欺詐罪罪名成立，被判處監禁共 18 個

月。第二被告經審訊後亦被裁定一項公職

人員索取利益罪及一項公職人員收受利益

罪罪名成立，被判處監禁共 21 個月。

在香港特別行政區 訴 樊容昌（區院刑事

案件 2012 年第 261 號）一案中，地政總

署一名助理署長承認五項代理人使用虛假

文書欺騙主事人的罪名。被告有權享有自

行租屋津貼，不過，假如申請人或其親屬

持有某住所或就某住所享有經濟權益，申

請人便不符合資格就該住所申請有關津

貼。被告在超過七年內申領相關津貼，共

約 160 萬元，但一直向香港政府隱瞞他擁

有申領津貼的住所。法院判處被告每項控

罪監禁 8 個月，同期執行，緩刑兩年。

在香港特別行政區 訴 黃健靈（區院刑

事案件 2011 年第 694 號）一案中，被告

經審訊後被裁定兩項公職人員行為不當

罪及兩項偽造帳目罪罪名成立。被告是

40

香港大學外科學系系主任及該學系醫療

技能發展中心（“發展中心”）的負責人，

他從發展中心的銀行帳戶挪用公款，以

支付其家務助理兼私人司機的薪金及僱

傭相關款項。被告知道發展中心的一名

行政助理從中心的銀行帳戶盜用了不少

於 267 萬元，但他沒有向校方舉報，反

而借款給該助理償還部分款項，以協助

該助理隱瞞盜竊罪行，他又容許該助理

辭職而無須接受處分，使該助理可以收

取全數的教職員公積金。此外，被告使

用校方已付款的交通費發票複本，為自

己的公司申請扣稅。法庭就被告所有控

罪判處 240 小時社會服務令。他已就定

罪及刑罰申請上訴許可而控方則申請覆

核他的刑罰。

在 2012 年，本組檢控了多宗涉及選舉

罪行的案件。這些案件均涉及向選舉事

務處遞交載有虛假住址資料的選民登記

表格，以在相關選區的正式選民登記冊

上登記。本組對 12 名沒有投票的選民提

出檢控，當中十人承認控罪，一人經審

訊後被裁定罪名成立。此外，本組亦對

45 名在選民登記表格提供虛假住址資料

並曾投票的選民，控以在選舉中作出舞

弊行為罪名，並對另外兩人控以串謀欺

詐罪。他們當中 31 人在認罪後被定罪，

10 人則經審訊後被裁定罪名成立。上述

案件各被告被判處的刑罰，絕大部分是

即時監禁 2 至 4 個月不等。

2012 年亦有數宗涉及選舉和貪污的重要

上訴案件。在簡炳墀 訴 香港特別行政

區 ( 高院裁判法院上訴案件 2012 年第 48

號）一案中，上訴人就一項在選舉中作出

舞弊行為的定罪提出上訴。上訴人是著

名退休練馬師，在 2011 年的上水區鄉事

委員會選舉中，向一名選民提供 13 萬元

現金，以誘使該選民投票給他。上訴人

經審訊後被定罪，被判監禁 3 個月零兩星

期。他就定罪提出上訴但被駁回。他已

向終審法院申請上訴許可而律政司司長

亦就原審裁判官所判的刑罰提出覆核。

在香港特別行政區 訴 陳志雲（第一答

辯人）及叢培崑（第二答辯人）（刑事上訴

2012 年第 103 號）一案中，律政司司長

就原審法官判第一及第二答辯人無罪的

裁決，以案件呈述方式上訴。第一答辯

人是電視廣播有限公司（“無綫電視”）

的業務總經理，第二答辯人是一家廣告

offence of misconduct in public office. In

February and December 2012, Mr Beney

Wong, the Deputy Section Head gave

lectures to ICAC investigators on the

compilation of prosecution files. During

the year, a delegation from South Korea

was also briefed by the Section on public

sector corruption law in Hong Kong.

In mid-November 2012, Ms Polly Wan

attended the Resumed Third Session of

the Implementation Review Group of

the United Nations Convention against

Corruption (UNCAC) held in Vienna.

Section IV (4) – ICAC (Private Sector)

The Section responsible for ICAC (private

sector) cases was headed by Mr Eddie Sean.

The major responsibility of the Section

was to advise the ICAC on cases related

to corruption in the private sector. Legal

advice and assistance were provided to the

ICAC in order to ensure that the detection,

investigation and prosecution of corruption

were carried out in a proper, effective and

efficient manner.

In 2012, 67 ICAC (private sector) cases were

prosecuted in the Magistrates’ Courts, and

11 were prosecuted in the District Court.

To effectively combat corruption, regular

liaison took place between the Section and

the ICAC. Talks and lectures were also given

to ICAC officers with a view to developing

their legal knowledge and helping them to

carry out their investigations effectively.

of a multitude of electoral offences. The

application by four of the defendants for

leave to appeal against their conviction

was also dismissed. Lee, a medical doctor

and a defeated candidate at the 2009

Shatin District Council By-election (Tai Wai

Constituency), and the other defendants

made use of a welfare association to offer

food, entertainment, anti-flu injection

services and cash coupons to electors with

a view to inducing them to vote for Lee. Lee

had incurred election expenses of over $2

million, far exceeding the statutory limit of

$48,000. After conviction, the defendants

were sentenced to various terms of

imprisonment ranging from 12 months to

21 months. Having regard to the scale, the

premeditation and the organization of the

conduct in question, the amount of election

expenses involved and that all the conduct

took place within a short time immediately

before the By-election polling day, the

Court of Appeal elevated the aggregate

sentences of the two major culprits from 21

months to 33 months. It also increased the

total sentences of each of the other three

defendants to 27 months.

Apart from giving advice and attending

court, Section members also shared their

experience with ICAC officers and civil

servants. In October 2012, Ms Polly Wan

spoke at a seminar organized by the Civil

Service Bureau to assist civil servants

to better understand the common law

41

Prosecutions Hong Kong 香港刑事檢控

2012

Section IV (4) – ICAC (Private Sector)

分科四第 4 組 — 廉政公署案件（私營機構）

Amongst the ICAC cases prosecuted in the

year, a number of cases were of particular

significance.

In HKSAR v Lau Yuen Mau KCCC

3641/2012, known as “the iPad 2 case”,

the defendant offered advantages to two

electrical appliance chain store employees

in return for their assistance in purchasing

iPad 2s without queuing up. He asked them

to inform him in advance of the availability

of iPad 2s at a certain store. The defendant

pleaded guilty to two offering charges on

the first day of trial and was sentenced to

2 months’ imprisonment on each count, to

run concurrently.

In HKSAR v Cheng Chee Tock, Theodore

(D1), Chong Ching Lai (D2), and Yu

Philip (D3) DCCC 476/2011 was a case

of conspiracy to defraud and money

laundering. D1, the chairman of a listed

製作公司的董事兼股東，控方起訴他們

二人或各人共三項貪污罪。以案件呈述

方式上訴之基礎是原審法官裁決時犯錯

如下：(1) 第一答辯人在無綫電視製作和

廣播的除夕倒數直播節目（“直播節目”）

中演出，並非以無綫電視代理人的身分

行事；以及 (2) 第一答辯人已獲無綫電視

默許為演出直播節目收取利益。上訴法

庭推翻原審法官所裁定三項控罪不成立

的裁決，並把案件發還原審法官重審，

以審理案中是否有“合理辯解”。原審法

官重審後裁定第一答辯人有合理辯解收

取利益，判第一及第二答辯人罪名不成

立。律政司司長已就他們二人無罪的裁

決再提出以案件呈述方式申請上訴。

在律政司司長 訴 李躍輝及其他 4 人

（覆核申請 2011 年第 3 號）及香港特別

行政區 訴 蔣世昌及其他 3 人（刑事上訴

2011 年第 171 號）（一併審理）兩案中，

各被告因多項選舉罪行被定罪及判刑，律

政司司長成功尋求覆核所有被告的刑罰，

而其中四名被告針對定罪提出的上訴許可

申請被駁回。任職醫生的李躍輝是 2009

年沙田區議會補選（大圍選區）落敗的候

選人。他與其他被告利用一個福利會向選

民提供食物、娛樂、流感針注射服務及

現金禮劵，以誘使他們投票予李躍輝。李

躍輝的選舉開支超逾 200 萬元，遠高於

48,000 元的法定上限。各被告經定罪後

被判處監禁，刑期由 12 至 21 個月。上訴

法庭考慮有關行為的規模及經精心計劃和

部署、所涉及選舉開支的金額，以及所有

行為均在緊接補選投票日前一段短時期內

發生，把兩名主犯的總刑期由 21 個月增

至 33 個月，並把其他三名被告各人的總

刑期增至 27 個月。

除了提供法律指引和出庭檢控，本組律

師 還 與 廉 署 人 員 和 公 務 員 交 流 經 驗 。

2012 年 10 月，溫淑芳女士在公務員事務

局舉辦的研討會中作簡介，協助公務員

更清楚明白屬普通法的“公職人員行為不

當”罪行。2012 年 2 月及 12 月，本組副

主管黃志偉先生就彙編檢控檔案，向廉

署調查主任講課。年內，本組亦向南韓

代表團簡介香港針對公營機構貪污的法

律。2012 年 11 月中，溫淑芳女士出席了

在維也納舉行的《聯合國反腐敗公約》實

施情況審議組第三屆會議續會。

company, arranged (with D2) for the sale

of a commercial property in which he

himself had a beneficiary interest, through

intermediaries (including D3) which he

controlled, to the company. By doing so,

D1 avoided the need to comply with the

requirements under the Listing Rules of the

Hong Kong Stock Exchange, including the

holding of special general meetings etc.

The money laundering charges arose from

the dealing of sale proceeds of the property,

part of which was routed back to a company

under D1’s de facto control. D1 and D3 were

convicted after trial. They were sentenced

to 5 months’ and 7 months’ imprisonment

respectively. They have applied for leave to

appeal against conviction.

HKSAR v Chan Hiu Lung and Sze Kam

Wai ESCC 4554/2011 was another case

involving fraudulent sales at the electrical

Section IV (5) – Customs and Excise

分科四第 5 組 — 海關案件

42

分科四第 4 組 —

廉政公署案件（私營機構）

本 組 負 責 處 理 廉 政 公 署（ 私 營 機 構 ）案

件，由單偉琛先生掌管。本組的主要職務

是就涉及私營機構貪污案件向廉署提供法

律指引及協助，以確保能高效益及高效率

地恰當偵查、調查和檢控貪污案件。

2012 年，本組在裁判法院提出檢控的廉

署（私營機構）案件有 67 宗，而在區域

法院則有 11 宗。為了有效打擊貪污，本

組定期與廉署人員聯繫，並為他們主持

講座及授課，以增強廉署人員的法律知

識，並協助他們有效地執行調查工作。

年 內 檢 控 的 廉 署 案 件 中 ， 有 多 宗 尤 其

重要。

在名為“iPad 2 案件”的香港特別行政區

訴 劉源茂（九龍城裁判法院刑事案件

2012 年第 3641 號）一案中，被告向兩名

連鎖電器公司職員提供利益以換取他們

協 助 ， 使 被 告 無 需 排 隊 便 能 購 買 i P a d

2。被告要求他們預先通知他某分店何時

會出售 iPad 2。被告在審訊首日承認兩

項提供利益罪，每項控罪被判處監禁兩

個月，同期執行。

香 港 特 別 行 政 區 訴 成 之 德（ 第 一 被

告）、張青來（第二被告）及余國超（第

三被告）（區院刑事案件 2011 年第 476

號）是一宗串謀欺詐及洗黑錢案件。第一

被告是一間上市公司主席，他與第二被

告作出安排，經由第一被告控制的中介

人（包括第三被告），向該公司出售第一

被告本身有實質權益的一個商業物業，

第一被告因而無須遵從香港證券交易所

《上市規則》的相關規定，包括召開特別

股東大會。洗黑錢的控罪源自處理售賣

該物業的得益，部分得益輾轉歸回由第

一被告實際控制的公司。第一被告和第

三被告經審訊後被裁定罪名成立，分別

被判監禁 5 個月及 7 個月。他們已就定罪

申請上訴許可。

香港特別行政區 訴 陳曉龍及史琴慧

（東區裁判法院刑事案件 2011 年第 4554

號）是另一宗在上述連鎖電器公司發生的

欺詐銷售案件。第一被告是該公司的高級

營業員，他安排向三名朋友秘密出售約

100 部 iPhone 4，違反了每名顧客只可

限購一部 iPhone 4 的公司政策。第一被

告、第二被告（在該公司任職收銀員／文

appliance chain store mentioned above. D1,

a senior supervisor at the store, broke the

company’s policy of selling only one iPhone

4 per customer, by arranging to secretly

sell around 100 iPhones 4 to three friends.

D1, D2 (a cashier/clerk of the store) and

others covered up the secret arrangement

by preparing false sales receipts with false

customer names, telephone numbers and

signatures. This gave the impression that

only one iPhone 4 was sold per customer.

D1 and D2 were convicted, on their own

pleas, of the offences of agent using false

instrument to deceive principal and were

sentenced to community service orders.

In HKSAR v Cheung Shiu Chor (D1) and

5 others KTCC 774/2012, various staff

members of a supermarket chain sold milk

powder in bulk to customers (including

D1), contrary to the company’s guidelines

that only three cans of milk powder could

be purchased by each customer per day.

D1 offered advantage in the form of

“laisee” consisting of $100 to $500 to staff

members of the supermarket and a related

personal care chain during the Lunar New

Year and in April 2011. Four defendants

were convicted of various corruption

offences. One of the defendants has lodged

appeals against conviction and sentence.

In HKSAR v Lionel John Krieger (D1) and

Tam Ping Cheong, James (D2) DCCC

316/2010, the two defendants (employees

of a waste service company) conspired with

another person (who had been convicted

in Macau for corruption offences) to offer

bribes of approximately HK$28 million

to Ao Man Long, the ex-Secretary for

Transport and Public Works of Macau. The

bribes were an inducement to or reward for

the renewal and award of public cleaning

contracts in Macau. Both defendants were

convicted. They had lodged applications

for leave to appeal against conviction. Their

applications for leave to appeal against

conviction were heard on 23 and 24 July

2013.

In HKSAR v Kan Wai Keung KTCC 3861 of

2011 and HCMA 735/2011, the defendant

pleaded guilty to two charges of offering an

advantage to an agent and was sentenced

to 3 months’ and 6 months’ imprisonment

respectively. He was the sole proprietor

of an engineering company. Through the

introduction of his then business partner,

the defendant had obtained maintenance

contracts from a jewelry company to

carry out electricity and water supply

maintenance works at its outlets. The

defendant and his business partner agreed

to pay advantages to the senior project

officer in the jewelry company on his

solicitation. His appeal against sentence

was dismissed.

Section IV (5) – Customs and Excise

In 2012, the Section provided 542

written advice to the Customs and Excise

Department in relation to a wide spectrum

of ordinances including the Import and

Export Ordinance, the Trade Descriptions

Ordinance, the Dutiable Commodities

Ordinance, the Toys and Children’s Products

Safety Ordinance, the Copyright Ordinance,

the Motor Vehicles (First Registration Tax)

Ordinance, and the Organized and Serious

Crimes Ordinance.

The Section was also consulted by the

Customs and Excise Department and the

relevant bureaux on the implementation of

the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-

Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions)

Ordinance and the Trade Descriptions

(Unfair Trade Practices) (Amendment)

Ordinance.

The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-

Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions)

Ordinance came into force on 1 April 2012.

Its aim is to enhance the existing anti-

money laundering and counter-financing of

terrorism regime in relation to the financial

sector. It also aims to align Hong Kong

with the prevailing international standards

in combating crimes related to money

laundering.

The Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade

Practices) (Amendment) Ordinance 2012

was passed by the Legislative Council on

17 July 2012 and is expected to come into

operation in the second quarter of 2013.

Its aims are to prohibit various types of

unfair trade practices and to prohibit false

trade descriptions in relation to goods

and services supplied by traders. The

Amendment Ordinance also confers powers

to require any services to be accompanied

by information or instruction relating to the

Section IV (5) – Customs and Excise

分科四第 5 組 — 海關案件

43

Prosecutions Hong Kong 香港刑事檢控

2012

員）及其他人擬備載有虛假顧客姓名、電

話號碼及簽署的虛假銷售單據，令人以為

他們只向每名顧客出售一部 iPhone 4，以

掩飾這項秘密安排。第一被告和第二被告

承認代理人使用虛假文書欺騙主事人罪，

被裁定罪名成立，判處社會服務令。

在香港特別行政區 訴 張紹楚（第一被

告）及其他 5 人（觀塘裁判法院刑事案件

2012 年第 774 號）一案，一所連鎖超級

市場多名職員向顧客（包括第一被告）出

售大批奶粉，違反了公司所訂的每名顧

客每日限購三罐奶粉的指引。第一被告

在 2011 年農曆新年及 4 月，向上述公司

及相關的連鎖個人護理店職員以派 100

至 500 元“利是”的形式提供利益。四名

被告被裁定多項貪污罪名成立。其中一

名被告就定罪及刑罰提出上訴。

在香 港 特 別 行 政 區 訴 L i one l J ohn

Krieger（第一被告）及譚炳昌（第二被告）

（區院刑事案件 2010 年第 316 號）一案

中，兩名被告是一所廢物處理公司的僱

員，與另一名在澳門曾因貪污被定罪的

人串謀，向澳門前運輸工務司司長歐文

龍提供約港幣 2,800 萬元賄款，作為延

續及取得澳門公共清潔合約的誘因或報

酬。兩名被告被裁定罪名成立。他們申

請就定罪的上訴許可於 2013 年 7 月 23

及 24 日聆訊。

在香港特別行政區 訴 簡偉強（觀塘裁

判法院刑事案件 2011 年第 3861 號及高

院裁判法院上訴 2011 年第 735 號）一案

中，被告承認兩項向代理人提供利益的控

罪，分別被判處監禁 3 個月及 6 個月。被

告是一家工程公司的獨資經營者，他經當

時的業務伙伴的推介，獲一間珠寶公司批

出維修合約，在其零售店進行水電維修工

程。被告及其業務伙伴同意應該公司高級

項目主任的要求，向他提供利益。被告不

服判刑的上訴，被法庭駁回。

分科四第 5 組 — 海關案件

在 2012 年，本組就多項範圍廣泛的條例

向香港海關提供 542 項書面法律指引，

包括《進出口條例》、《商品說明條例》、

《應課稅品條例》、《玩具及兒童產品安全

條例》、《版權條例》、《汽車（首次登記稅）

條例》和《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》。

services. It also requires an advertisement

of any services to contain or refer to

information relating to the services.

Specifically, through the introduction of

new or revised provisions (collectively

known as “fair trading sections”), the

Trade Descriptions (Unfair Trade Practices)

(Amendment) Ordinance broadens the

definition of trade descriptions of goods

and extends its coverage to prohibit (a) false

trade descriptions of services; (b) misleading

omissions; (c) aggressive commercial

practices; (d) bait advertising; (e) bait-

and-switch; and (f) wrongly accepting

payment. The Amendment Ordinance also

introduces a compliance-based mechanism

under which civil enforcement options can

be drawn on to deal with infringements

instead of criminal prosecutions.

In Hong Kong’s first marked oil case,

HKSAR v Sze Mei Mun and others DCCC

3/2011, the Hong Kong Customs and

Excise Department restrained $240 million

of crime proceeds under the Organized and

Serious Crimes Ordinance. The proceeds

came from a cross-boundary syndicate

smuggling marked oil from Hong Kong to

the Mainland. The case originated from a

joint investigation between the Hong Kong

Customs and Excise Department and the

PRC Customs that begun in late 2009.

At trial, the prosecution called 47 witnesses

among whom four were serving sentences

in the Mainland. By way of Letters of

Request made to the Mainland authorities,

evidence taking hearings had been carried

out at the Shenzhen Municipal Intermediate

People’s Court. The evidence was received

and accepted by the District Court. All five

defendants were convicted of one count

of conspiracy to export unmanifested

cargo. In addition, they were also convicted

either jointly or individually of charges of

money laundering. They were sentenced

to imprisonment terms ranging from 4 to 6

years.

HKSAR v Fung Hon Yin KCCC 5034/2012

was the first prosecution case under the

new Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-

Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions

Ordinance) since its enactment on 1 April

2012. The defendant pleaded guilty to one

charge of operating money service without

a licence and was fined $5,000.

The defendant was a money service operator

who ran a remittance shop in Jordan area.

He admitted that he had not registered as a

person operating a remittance and money

changing business under the Organized and

Serious Crimes Ordinance before 1 April

2012 and he did not apply for a licence

under the new law after 1 April 2012.

Section IV (6) – Cybercrime

The word “cybercrime” was coined in the

late 1990s. A sub-group of the G8 group of

nations was formed following a meeting in

Lyon, France, to study emerging problems

of criminality that were being fostered by,

or migrating to, the Internet. This Lyon

group used the term to describe all kinds of

crime being perpetrated on the net or on

new telecommunications networks.

On 1 August 2012, the Cybercrime Section

was formed in the Prosecutions Division,

with Mr Hayson Tse in charge. In response

to the significant rise in cybercrimes in

recent years, the police had expanded

its Technology Crime Division and set up

the Cyber Security Centre on 7 December

2012. To complement this effort, the

dedicated Cybercrime Section was set up

to enable experts in law and information

technology to work closely with the police

Cyber Security Centre. The Section is

responsible for providing expert legal advice

on cybercrimes, preventing technology

crime and conducting related prosecutions,

as well as carrying out research and training

to prosecutors to deal with cases involving

cybercrime. It also coordinates legal actions

within Hong Kong and promotes co-

operation at the international level.

In September 2012, a university student

was convicted on his own pleas of three

counts of obtaining access to a computer

with dishonest intent. He hacked into a

neighbour’s WiFi connection from his home

to connect to a virtual private network in

an attempt to hide his identity and thwart

police investigations. He then sent three

e-mail hoaxes to the Mass Transit Railway

Corporation and Legislative Council. Police

officers then checked the IP address of the

e-mails and contacted law enforcement

44

的營業行為；(d) 餌誘式廣告宣傳；(e) 先

誘後轉的銷售行為；以及 (f) 不當地接受

付款。此外，該條例亦引進一項以遵從

為先的機制，可透過選擇民事執法而非

刑事檢控方式處理違例事項。

香港特別行政區 訴 施美滿及其他人

（區院刑事案件 2011 年第 3 號）是香港

首宗“紅油”案。香港海關根據《有組織

及嚴重罪行條例》限制了 2.4 億元犯罪得

益，這巨額得益來自一個跨境犯罪集團

從香港走私紅油到內地。這宗案件源自

香港海關與中國海關在 2009 年年底開始

的聯合調查行動。

在審訊中，控方傳召了 47 名證人，其中

四人正在內地服刑。透過向內地當局發

出請求書，取證聆訊在深圳市中級人民

法院進行，而取得的證據最終被區域法

院接納。五名被告全部被裁定一項串謀

輸出未列艙單貨物罪罪名成立，而他們

共同或個別被控的洗黑錢控罪亦被裁定

罪名成立，判處監禁 4 至 6 年不等。

香港特別行政區 訴 馮漢彥（九龍城裁

判法院刑事案件 2012 年第 5034 號）一

案，是《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集

另外，本組亦應香港海關及相關決策局

的要求，就落實《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資

金籌集（金融機構）條例》及《商品說明

（不良營商手法）（修訂）條例》提供指引。

《打擊洗錢及恐怖分子資金籌集（金融機

構 ) 條例》自 2012 年 4 月 1 日起實施，

旨在加強金融業現行的打擊洗黑錢及恐

怖分子資金籌集制度，使香港與國際現

行的打擊洗黑錢罪行標準接軌。

《2012 年商品說明（不良營商手法）（修

訂 ) 條例》在 2012 年 7 月 17 日獲立法

會通過，預期在 2013 年第二季實施。該

條例旨在禁止多種不良營商手法，以及

禁止商戶提供關於貨品或服務的虛假商

品說明。該修訂條例亦賦權規定任何服

務須附有與該服務有關的資料或說明事

項，並規定任何服務的宣傳廣告須載有

或提及與該服務有關的資料。

具體而言，《商品說明（不良營商手法）

（修訂）條例》透過引入新增或修訂的條

文（統稱為“公平營商條文”），擴闊就貨

品的商品說明的釋義，並將該條例的適

用範圍擴展至禁止 (a) 就服務作出的虛假

商品說明；(b) 誤導性遺漏；(c) 具威嚇性

authorities overseas. When officers made

a door-to-door investigation, the student

voluntarily surrendered and confessed. On

conviction, he was ordered to perform 120

hours of community service (HKSAR v Chan

Hung Yu TMCC 2848/2012).

There has been a recent surge in the number

of cases of people taking digital photographs

or videos up women's skirts using mobile

phones. Depending on the available evidence,

the usual charge for such criminal conduct is

disorderly conduct in public places, loitering or

the common law offence of outraging public

decency. Where the criminal conduct did not

take place in public, a charge of dishonest

use of computer would be brought (see SJ v

Chong Yao Long Kevin CAAR 2/2012).

In April 2012, a university research assistant

was convicted on his own plea of one count

of obtaining access to a computer with

dishonest intent. He had used a mobile

phone to covertly take a video recording of

a female student bathing. The student saw

the mobile phone, screamed, looked over

the cubicle and saw the research assistant

standing in the shower. On conviction

of the research assistant, the magistrate

45

Prosecutions Hong Kong 香港刑事檢控

2012

Section IV (6) – Cybercrime

分科四第 6 組 — 電腦網絡罪行

（金融機構）條例》自 2012 年 4 月 1 日制

定後首宗根據該條例提出檢控的案件。被

告承認一項無牌經營金錢服務罪，被罰款

5,000 元。

被告在佐敦區經營一間匯款店。他承認在

2012 年 4 月 1 日前沒有根據《有組織及嚴

重罪行條例》登記為經營匯款及貨幣兌換

業務的人，而在 2012 年 4 月 1 日後又沒

有根據新法例申領牌照。

分科四第 6 組 — 電腦網絡罪行

“Cybercr ime”（網絡罪行）一詞，是在

上世紀 90 年代後期所創，當時八國集

團在法國里昂舉行會議後成立了一個小

組，負責研究藉互聯網促生或伸延至互

聯網的新興犯罪問題。這個里昂小組用

網絡罪行一詞形容各類在網絡上或新式

電訊網絡上進行的罪行。

刑事檢控科在 2012 年 8 月 1 日設立電腦

網絡罪行組，由謝家樹先生掌管。為應付

近年網絡罪行激增，警方擴大了科技罪案

組，在 2012 年 12 月 7 日成立網絡安全中

心。為配合這方面的發展，本科特別設立

電腦網絡罪行組，讓法律和資訊科技兼擅

的專家能與警方網絡安全中心緊密合作。

本組負責多項工作，包括就網絡罪行提供

專門法律指引、預防科技罪行及進行有關

的檢控工作，以及進行研究和培訓檢控人

員處理涉及網絡罪行的案件。本組也負責

協調香港有關網絡罪行的法律工作，並推

動國際層面的合作。

在 2012 年 9 月，一名大學生承認三項有

不誠實意圖而取用電腦罪，被判罪名成

立。該名大學生以黑客方式從家中入侵鄰

居的 WiFi 無線上網網絡，令他接駁到一個

虛擬專用網絡，縱而隱藏身分和阻礙警方

調查，然後向香港鐵路有限公司及立法會

發出三封惡作劇電子郵件。警務人員其後

追查有關電子郵件的互聯網地址，並與海

外的執法機關聯絡。在警員進行逐戶上門

調查時，該名學生向警員自首及作出招

認。經定罪後，他被判處 120 小時社會服

務令（香港特別行政區 訴 陳鴻裕（屯門

裁判法院刑事案件 2012 年第 2848 號））。

以流動電話拍攝女性裙底數碼照片或影

像的案件，最近數目急升。針對這類犯

罪行為提出的控罪，通常有“在公共場

所行為不檢”、 “遊蕩”或屬普通法的“作

sentenced him to 5 weeks’ imprisonment

suspended for one year (HKSAR v Man

Keng Cheung, Kenneth ESCC 1504/2012).

In December 2012, a university student was

convicted on his own pleas of three counts

of doing acts outraging public decency. On

three different occasions, he took digital

photographs up female students' skirts

using a video-audio device. The magistrate

sentenced him to a total of 8 weeks’

imprisonment (HKSAR v Wong Shing Ki

TMCC 2844/2012).

On 7 December 2012, police launched

the Cyber Security Centre to boost Hong

Kong's internet security. The Centre provides

round-the-clock services and strengthens

co-ordination between police, government

departments, and local and overseas

stakeholders when major information

systems come under attack. The Centre

analyzes intelligence related to cyber attacks

and acts if necessary. It conducts network

security validations and research to help

detect and prevent technology crime. Mr

Kevin Zervos, SC, DPP, Dr Alain Sham and Mr

Hayson Tse attended the opening ceremony.

In October 2012, Mr Hayson Tse delivered

a 2-hour lecture entitled “Cybercrime law,

digital forensics and investigations” to ICAC

officers.

The future is the convergence of computing

and telecommunications and the emergence

of an "internet of things". Soon the internet

will start connecting myriads of objects and

devices of all kinds. By 2020, it is expected

that these networks will be both laid out

as public infrastructures and dynamically

created by the objects connecting to

one another. These will provide new

opportunities for criminal exploitation. Even

with the most carefully crafted legislation,

enforcing the law in a virtual community

under the evolving telecommunication

networks creates unique problems never

before faced by law enforcement agencies.

Given the constantly changing nature of

digital technology, it is incumbent on the

Cybercrime Section to use the available

legislative framework and their specialist

training and to look ahead to work towards

a better control of technology crimes.

出有違公德行為罪行”，視乎所得證據而

定。假如有關的犯罪行為不是在公眾地

方進行，控方會以“不誠實取用電腦” 的

控罪提出檢控 （見律政司司長 訴 鍾曜

隆 （覆核申請 2012 年第 2 號））。

2012 年 4 月，一名大學研究助理員承認

一項有不誠實意圖而取用電腦罪，被判罪

名成立。他使用流動電話偷拍一名女學

生洗澡的影像，女學生看到流動電話後呼

叫，從沐浴間上方查看，見到該名研究助

理員站在淋浴間位置。裁判官裁定該名助

理員罪名成立，判處監禁 5 個星期，緩刑

1 年（香港特別行政區 訴 文鏡彰（東區

裁判法院刑事案件 2012年第 1504號））。

2012 年 12 月，一名大學生承認三項作

出有違公德行為罪，被判罪名成立。該

大學生三度使用影音設備拍攝女學生裙

底數碼照片。裁判官判處監禁共 8 個星期

（香港特別行政區 訴 黃聖淇（屯門裁判

法院刑事案件 2012 年第 2844 號））。

2012 年 12 月 7 日，警方成立網絡安全中

心，提升香港的網絡安全。該中心 24 小

時運作，在重要資訊系統受到攻擊時，

加強警隊、政府部門及本地和海外各持

份者的協調工作。該中心會分析與網絡

攻擊有關的情報，並在有需要時採取行

動。中心亦進行網絡安全審訂和研究，

以助偵查和防止科技罪行。刑事檢控專

員薛偉成資深大律師、沈仲平博士和謝

家樹先生出席了中心的開幕禮。

2012 年 10 月，謝家樹先生以“網絡罪行

法、數碼鑑證及調查”為題，主持一個兩

小時的講座，向廉署人員授課。

電腦與電訊匯流融合，“物聯網”掘起，是

明日世界的必然發展；互聯網把各式各樣

的物品和設備聯接起來，是指日可待。到

2020 年，這些網絡預計會成為公共基建

的一部分，而物品互相聯接，會使網絡不

斷擴充。這些發展會為不法分子帶來新的

犯罪機會。即使法例訂有最精心擬備的條

文，但電訊網絡發展一日千里，要在這個

虛擬世界裏執法，勢將為執法機關帶來前

所未有的獨特困難。

鑑於數碼科技不斷推陳出新，電腦網絡

罪 行 組 人 員 必 須 利 用 法 例 所 訂 的 架 構

和專門技能訓練，把目光放遠，好好籌

劃，以期更妥善打擊科技罪行。

46