Author Archives: admin

區域法院法官裁定被告涉及5,400萬港元的洗黑錢指控不成立。

D1 與 D2（兩人實際上是夫妻關係）連同其他 7 名被告，共面臨 9 項洗黑錢指控。控方指控 D1 及 D2 的各銀行帳戶，以及 D1 的香港賽馬會（「HKJC」）帳戶，曾進行大量現金交易，其金額與其稅務申報表所申報的收入「不成比例」；此外，在 D1 及 D2 家人的住所內，亦發現了兩張屬於其他人的自動櫃員機卡。

所有被告均提出永久終止聆訊的申請。經聽取證據及詳細陳詞後，法院裁定終止針對D8及D9的法律程序。

D1 與 D2 雖曾被捕，但已於十多年前獲無條件釋放。雖然區域法院暫委法官蘇文隆駁回了 D1 與 D2 要求永久終止訴訟程序的申請，但法庭同意隨著時間流逝，他們自然難以回憶起相關交易的細節。鑒於辯方提交了大量證物，法官接納 D2 及其他辯方證人的證供。

法官認定，D1與D2帳戶中大量現金交易，可歸因於其現金流密集型業務，包括經營一家麵包店、一家小食店、一家按摩院及一項進口水貨業務。另有證據顯示，D1及D2曾從事的士牌照及各類金融工具的買賣。這些事實足以證明D1及D2的財力，而這些收入來源均屬非課稅性質，因此不會反映在其報稅表中。證據亦顯示，D1有賭博的習慣，包括與朋友以現金賭博，以及在香港賽馬會賭博。這解釋了其香港賽馬會帳戶內的大額交易。

至於兩張不屬於D1及D2的提款卡，法庭認同辯方的主張，即僅憑這些卡片被發現於D1及D2的住所內，本身並不足以證明D1知悉其存在，更遑論他持有該等卡片或動用卡內款項。

據此，D1 和 D2 被判定所有控罪罪名不成立。本案中其餘所有被告亦均獲判無罪。

蘇信恩大律師聯同許志浩大律師共同在歷時26天的審訊中代表D1及D2。裁決理由書載於: https://lnkd.in/gHDsDaYZ

Single Judge of the Court of Appeal granted bail pending appeal to an Applicant convicted in the District Court of Handling Proceeds of Crime (commonly known as money laundering).

The Applicant (who was D1 at trial) pleaded not guilty to a charge of money laundering and stood trial before HHJ Stanley Chan. The charge, which took place in or about mid-autumn festival in September 2015, was that a company which D1 was the sole director, sole shareholder, and sole signatory of the bank account thereof, handled proceeds of crime of a mooncake coupon scam. After an unsuccessful application for permanent stay of proceeding, D1 was convicted after trial. The Judge sentenced D1 to a prison term of 33 months.

In his Reasons for Verdict, the Judge said “[62]. A defendant does not have to prove anything. 𝐻𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟, 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑦 𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑛𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝐴/𝐶 1 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡, 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 As the account holder of A/C 1, it is no doubt that D1 did deal with the proceeds, even though it was allegedly also done by [his elder brother]”. The Judge also said that “[61]. …𝘈𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.”

Hon K Yeung J held that there was “𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆” in the Applicant’s submission that the Judge held the view that a defendant in a money laundering charge had the onus of disproving knowledge. Further, the Judge did not make any reference to or mention of the Court of Final Appeal authority of 𝑯𝒂𝒓𝒋𝒂𝒏𝒊 𝑯𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒉 𝑴𝒖𝒓𝒍𝒊𝒅𝒉𝒂𝒓 (2019) 22 HKCFAR 446 (which requires a court to consider the perception and/or bias one may have). Bail pending appeal was granted on merits basis.

Simon So appeared with Herman Ho for D1 in the 8-day trial before HHJ Stanely Chan. The Reasons for Verdict and the Reasons for Sentence could be found in https://lnkd.in/g2Ki7gVx and https://lnkd.in/gx_BRuzh respectively.

Simon So appeared with Herman Ho and Jack Hui in making an application for bail pending appeal. The Judgment was published on https://lnkd.in/gEVT-wS9.

Deputy District Judge Winnie Lau found a 30-year-old defendant not guilty of possession of firearms and ammunition.

In June 2020, the police raided the Defendant’s home where the followings were found: (i) an exhibit bearing the appearance of a Glock 17 pistol with a magazine allegedly found inside (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐥”); (ii) an exhibit bearing the appearance of an AR 15 rifle with a muzzle device at the muzzle end (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐢𝐟𝐥𝐞”); (iii) three stand-alone magazines; and (iv) 53 cartridge cases. It was an agreed fact that the Defendant did not possess any firearms licence. In two video-recorded interviews (“𝐕𝐑𝐈”), the Defendant explained to the police that the exhibits were only toy/dummy guns and they did not have the function to discharge missiles/bullets. The Defendant is an “airsoft/toy gun fanatic” and possessed the exhibits (together with many other toy guns not seized by the police) for collection purposes.

In finding the Defendant not guilty, the Judge found that the evidence of the Defendant had not been undermined under cross-examination and his evidence in the VRIs and in the witness box was true. The Judge could not rule out the possibility that the Defendant did not know the true nature of the exhibits, being regulated by the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (“𝐅𝐀𝐎”). The Judge further noted that the Pistol and the Rifle did not have any firing function, nor were the police able to find any suitable tool(s) and/or raw material(s) for reactivating the Pistol and/or the Rifle. Further, the Judge found the expert report on the functionality of the Magazines unreliable as the expert did not set out the steps and procedures conducted to test their functionality, which was inconsistent with the expert reports for other exhibits. Finally, the Judge was persuaded that there was a real possibility that the Defendant used the cartridges for personal and/or household adornment purposes and, hence, they fall under the exception provision of the FAO.

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui for the Defendant in the trial which lasted for 12 days, spanning from November 2024 to October 2025.

Prosecution offered no further evidence after defence objected to the admissibility of crucial prosecution evidence.

The defendant was charged with Letting Premises to be Used as a Vice Establishment. It is the common ground that the Defendant was one of the joint tenants of a premises situated at Mut Wah Street (物華街), Kwun Tong (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐥𝐚𝐭”). After the Defendant formally pleaded not guilty, the prosecution applied to adduce and rely on three “warning notices” (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬”) issued to and received by the defendant which stated respectively that various females (on various dates) told various unknown undercover officer(s) that she/they was/were a prostitute and invited him/them to go to the Flat for sex. However, neither the female(s) nor the undercover officer(s) were intended to be called by the prosecution as witnesses. The Defence objected to the admissibility of the Notices on the basis that they were (i) irrelevant; (ii) hearsay; (iii) impermissible implied assertion; and/or (iv) prejudicial (and outweighs its probative value).

After taking time to consider the defendant’s submissions, the prosecution decided to offer no further evidence against the defendant and the defendant was acquitted.

Simon So appeared with Herman Ho for the Defendant in the trial, which was initially listed for 2 days.

Magistrate Byron Tsang acquitted the defendant, a 15-year-old boy at the time of the incident, of raping a then 15-year-old girl.

The Prosecution’s case (which is also common ground) is that the Defendant (“𝗗”) came to know the complainant (“𝗫”) when he visited her place of work (a restaurant) with, amongst others, a common friend between them. X then took an interest in D and asked for his contact information. D later accompanied X to get a tongue piercing, and the two rode bikes with D’s friends at night a few times. During one of the said bike rides and through WhatsApp, X confessed her romantic feelings towards D and asked if D could become her boyfriend. D, nonetheless, repeatedly rejected X as he was still “𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹(-𝘨𝘪𝘳𝘭𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥)”. Nevertheless, X persisted and even offered to pay D HK$ 200,000 and threatened to commit suicide when she once visited D’s home on an uninvited basis during midnight hours seeking to talk to him.

The Prosecution alleged that one night (which was approximately a week after X came to know D), D and a few friends went to X’s place of work and allegedly forced her to go home with them to play mahjong. X alleged that D took her personal belongings and she had no option but to comply. X alleged that D raped her in D’s own bedroom on the following morning, with one of D’s friends listening to the whole incident in the living room.

Having heard the evidence and viewed the WhatsApp records between the two, the Court found X’s evidence incredible and acquitted D of rape. Magistrate Byron Tsang noted that during the alleged rape, even as described by X, there were plenty of opportunities where D had no control over X’s body. However, X made no effort to resist D, nor did she ever attempt to escape. X’s behaviour after the incident was even more confusing – she left D’s bedroom after allegedly being raped, but then shortly went back in, slept together with D on the same bed until the afternoon, with D spooning her from behind. X then said that after she left D’s home, X (on her own volition and verified by CCTV footage) went back to D’s home. In the WhatsApp conversation between X and D immediately after the incident, her only complaints against D were that D “𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 [𝘟] 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨” and X lost her AirPods. The Court noted that X had the tendency to use “𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭” as an answer when questions detrimental to her case were put to her, but was well able to remember details in her favour.

The Court therefore could not draw the only irresistible inference that X and D had sexual intercourse, nor that X did not consent to that.

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui for the Defendant in the juvenile court in the 9-day trial.

In quashing D5’s conviction of “assisting an unauthorized entrant to remain in Hong Kong”, the Court of Appeal (“𝐂𝐀”) held that the earlier CA decision of 𝒀𝒆𝒖𝒏𝒈 𝑲𝒂𝒎 𝒀𝒖𝒆𝒏 was per incuriam (𝑣𝑖𝑧 wrong in law).

The prosecution’s case was that D5 procured sexual services from D1. To do so, D5 booked a hotel room for 16 days and paid for it. The Prosecution’s case was that D1 was an unauthorized entrant (“𝐔𝐄”). Having pleaded not guilty, D5 (together with another defendant, D4) stood trial before HH Judge E Yip. The Judge rejected D5’s evidence and said that D1 could not have so easily deceived him. The Judge found that D5 had reasonable grounds to suspect D1 to be a UE but failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover her status and booked a room for D1. D5 was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. Bail pending appeal was granted in 2023 by Hon Anthea Pang JA.

CA took the chance to review the statutory defence and considered the nature of the offence. CA found that the offence fell under the 4th Alternative under Court of Final Appeal’s judgments of 𝑯𝒊𝒏 𝑳𝒊𝒏 𝒀𝒆𝒆 and 𝑲𝒖𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒏 – where by a defendant has an evidential burden to raise as an issue that all three conditions under the ordinance do not apply, and the prosecution has to fulfil the persuasive burden to prove the subsistence of any of the three conditions: [43]. In reaching that decision, CA also considered whether the earlier decision (differently constituted) of 𝒀𝒆𝒖𝒏𝒈 𝑲𝒂𝒎 𝒀𝒖𝒆𝒏 (dealing with the offence of “assisting the passage to Hong Kong of a conveyance which carried UE”) was correct. CA considered Simon So’s text 𝑳𝒂𝒘 𝒐𝒇 𝑬𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝑯𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝑲𝒐𝒏𝒈 (2nd edition) and, citing with agreement, found that 𝒀𝒆𝒖𝒏𝒈 𝑲𝒂𝒎 𝒀𝒖𝒆𝒏 was 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑚: [46]-[49].

CA concluded that the Judge’s reasoning in rejecting D5’s version was flawed: [64]-[70]. In particular, the Judge had, in strong terms, criticised D5 to be “lying” of which CA was not convinced by the reasons provided. Further, CA considered there was a danger that D5’s perceived lies became a substitute that D5 knew/suspected D1 was an UE: [69]. CA further sounded an additional observation that this offence required the Secretary for Justice’s consent and that such consent is more than a mere formality: [73]. It added that, should the evidence before the court be the entirety of the evidence available to the prosecution, careful thought should have been given to whether prosecution for this specific offence was appropriate and justified: [74].

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui before the rolled-up hearing for D5 in the Full Bench of the Court of Appeal. The full judgment was published on https://lnkd.in/g7zMbGST. They also applied for bail pending appeal in 2023 before Hon Anthea Pang JA, which was granted by Her Ladyship.

上訴庭 (高等法院署理首席法官麥機智、上訴庭法官薛偉成及彭寶琴) 因接納新增證據而撤銷被裁定謀殺罪罪名成立的上訴人的罪名。

上訴人承認他殺死了自己的父親 (死者) 但否認有預謀這樣做。他承認誤殺，但否認謀殺，並在原訟庭法官邱智立席前受審。陪審團裁定上訴人罪名成立，被判終身監禁。

在上訴的階段，上訴人投訴他因為控方指控他說謊，而沒有得到公平審訊。控方指出上訴人在殺害父親前一天根本沒有致電死者 ("消失的通話")。鑒於控方的盤問，原審法官於是向陪審團發出謊言指引。根據其後的新增證據顯示，該消失的通訊其實確實存在，致令控方攻擊上訴人可信性影響上訴人的公平審訊。

上訴庭表示，控方因為 "消失的通話" 而被指說謊，構成審訊中重大的不當之處，因為這直接影響陪審團如何衡量上訴人的可信性。上訴庭決定批准將能證明 "消失的通話" 存在的證據納入為上訴階段的新證據。上訴庭也拒絕應用 "但書"，並將謀殺定罪撤銷，終身監禁的刑法擱置。

蘇信恩大律師由楊艾文教授帶另，在上訴庭法官薛偉成席前取得上訴許可 ([2022] HKCA 1777: https://lnkd.in/gHcwT9u6，亦在由高等法院署理首席法官麥機智、上訴庭法官薛偉成及彭寶琴組成的合議庭席前進行上訴 ([2025] HKCA 719: https://lnkd.in/gJmeHEnA).

署理主任裁判官梁嘉琪因控方延誤及特殊情況判承認處理港幣140萬元犯罪得益的30歲被告監禁12個月，緩刑2年。

2018年12月，投訴人 (PW) 在無法向高利貸還款後被人恐嚇。PW報警求助。PW表示接到一通電話，問他是否需要借貸。他表示希望借錢，高利貸要求他提供住址、身分證、及父母的姓名才能借款。高利貸也提供了一個指定戶口讓他還款。警方調查得知該指定戶口的持有人正是被告。經拘捕後，被告在錄影會面表示他的經歷與PW類似。他接到一通電話，問他是否需要借錢。他與PW一樣也表示希望借錢。高利貸也向被告要求提供個人資料，更要求他開設一個銀行戶口，並將他的銀行提款卡及密碼抵押給高利貸。被告在收到銀行結單後發現有可疑的交易，在驚慌下被告到銀行取消該戶口。被告被捕後由警方批准保釋了約6個月，之後獲警方無條件釋放。2025年 (即約6年後)，警方致電被告，將他重新拘捕，並將他落案起訴。被告承認控罪。

法庭為被告索取了一份背景報告。在聽取了控方及辯方的全面陳詞後，裁判官同意本案存有特別的情況。本案的案情不但與常見典型的處理犯罪得益案件案情有別，控方更出現了延誤檢控的情況。被告在被無條件釋放後也有合理的期望認為案件已經告一段落。多年內，被告一直都維持沒有任何刑事定罪紀錄。被告的財政狀況已有改善，重犯的機會低。被告也已經建立了自己穩定的事業，更準備結婚組織家庭。法庭認為更新是一個判刑時的重要考慮因素。雖然處理犯罪得益的控罪一般以即時監禁的方式處理，法庭被案例及辯方的陳詞說服本案可以將監禁刑期緩刑執行。

蘇信恩大律師聯同何睿銘大律師共同在答辯及求情聆訊中代表被告。

原訟庭暫委法官李俊文在控方同意被告公司遭剝奪公平審訊後，裁定被告公司不服定罪上訴得直，撤銷定罪。

上訴人公司 (A1) 面對一項傳票控罪，指它沒有在僱員的僱傭合約終止時支付工資。A1的董事 (即A2) 亦面對一項傳票控罪，指她身為A2的董事沒有確保僱員在合約終止時指令A1支付工資。其中一項的上訴理據指原審裁判官沒有審訊期間讓上訴人獲得公平審訊。例如: 原審裁判官沒有讓上訴人申請審訊錄音或謄本讓它們聘用新的法律代表。控方在閱讀上訴方的陳述後，公允地同意上訴應該得直。原訟庭暫委法官李俊文考慮了所有相關情況後，同意上訴應該得直，並下令撤銷定罪。

蘇信恩大律師在不服定罪上訴中代表第一上訴人。上訴的判案書載於: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=170691&currpage=T.

原訟庭暫委法官李俊文基於控方案中揮之不去之疑慮裁定上訴人管有攻擊性武器 (即兩條膠條) 的不服定罪上訴得直。

上訴人被控管有攻擊性武器 (即兩條膠條) (涉案證物)。案情指他在2023年駕駛私家車期間被捕。他否認控罪，在一名暫委裁判官席前受審。控方依賴上訴人據稱說過的一句口頭招認: "呢兩條膠條我用嚟防身自衛，比次機會啦。" (據稱口頭招認)。雖然辯方反對據稱口頭招認呈堂，裁判官最後裁定據稱口頭招認可以成為證據。上訴人自行出庭作供，也傳召了他的朋友李先生 (他於上訴人被警方截停時就在附近) 及李先生的姊姊作為辯方證人。辯方案情指涉案證物是用來在李先生姊姊家墊高洗衣機，因為洗衣機出現漏水的情況。墊高洗衣機是為了讓李先生的姊姊方便清理滲水。裁判官拒絕接納整個辯方案情，裁定上訴人罪名成立，判他即時入獄2個月。上訴人申請保釋聽候上訴獲批。

上訴聆訊後，原訟庭暫委法官李俊文認為控方案情令法庭起疑:-

(1) 涉案證物是為兩條既不鋒利而且頗為薄身和輕便的膠條 (50 釐米 (長) x 4 釐米 (闊) x 1釐米 (厚))。法庭考慮後認為如以其作為襲擊他人之用，似乎傷害性不大，甚至威嚇性亦不大: [40]。

(2) 再者，法庭注意到警員到場後從來沒有為涉案證物擺放在私家車內的確實位置拍照，也沒有為私家車上有沒有其他裝修相關物品 (如手套、錘及鉗等) 拍照。法庭認為警員在辯方多次盤問下都 "完全不記得" 搜車期間有沒有裝修相關物品這點 "奇怪": [41]。

法庭也認為裁判官採納了"略嫌苛刻" 的標準考慮辯方案情: [46]。以 "重聽" (rehearing) 的方式考慮案中所有證據後，法庭認為辯方案情基本上是一致，而控方也沒有證據反駁辯方的說法: [47]-[49]。鑒於控方案情有不足的地方，而辯方案情又沒有被控方反駁以排除該說法的可能性，法庭認為案件有揮之不去的疑慮: [50]。法庭最後判令上訴得直，定罪撤銷。法庭亦命令上訴人可獲得上訴50%的訟費。

蘇信恩大律師聯同何睿銘大律師共同在上訴中代表上訴人。上訴的判案書載於: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=170507&currpage=T蘇信恩大律師聯同何睿銘大律師亦是審訊時之法律代表，審訊歷時4天。