有位學歷很高的人寫給我諮詢, 又是店鋪盜竊這老話題, 其實肯仔細看本blog, 幾乎所有問題的答案都可找到。幾封電郵後, 這位先生說用了「標少」的名捐了$1500元給香港搞少數族裔融和的社福機構, 他的理由其一是他來自大陸我都肯幫, 其二是他自覺不配以自己名字捐款。因求助捐款是我在2014年訂立的規則, 到現在約捐了萬多元, 可是過去一年我已不再提出這前設條件, 因為執行起來頗困難。這位先生肯定仔細看過我一些文, 才會有這種舉措。有人捐款給社褔機構, 乃美事一樁, 袋袋平安, 我無理由反對。也別誤會, 不是捐給我, 也不是交給我代捐, 我不沾這銅臭。反正我吃到安樂茶飯, 總算三餐無憂, 物質無需豐腴, 便不為物累。寫給我商討的人, 香港、大陸、台灣及老外都有, 我沒有歧視別人的背景, 我懂的都樂意講。坦白講, 以我名字捐款, 我不受落。所謂人怕出名豬怕肥, 我怕肥但不怕出名。可是, 錢不是來自我口袋, 我沒理由叨別人的光, 沽名釣譽, 我沒有興趣。不想用自己名字的人, 就張三李四, 悉隨尊便, 甚或匿名隱姓。
人就是這樣, 為了貪念貪刺激或者受到剌激而去盜竊, 面對後果才知道代價有多大, 怎樣擠也肯擠點錢出來請律師, 但一講到捐錢就有心無力。所以我就不再講捐錢了。
昨晚在很久之前的一篇文(初犯店鋪盜竊怎麽辦)有這留言:
你好，我朋友十六歲，是個中學生，那天放學之後到了超級市場偷了不足100元的東西。過程給一名買菜的阿姐看見，然後便告訴了超市職員。後來我的朋友實在很害怕，就跑走了。請問他們會查出我朋友在哪裡讀書嗎？因為他穿了校服。。。但是他真的知錯了，很害怕，哭了很久了。請問職員會不會報案？會不會到學生的學校去抓捕人？我的朋友真的知錯了。
人就是這樣, 為了貪念貪刺激或者受到剌激而去盜竊, 面對後果才知道代價有多大, 怎樣擠也肯擠點錢出來請律師, 但一講到捐錢就有心無力。所以我就不再講捐錢了。
昨晚在很久之前的一篇文(初犯店鋪盜竊怎麽辦)有這留言:
你好，我朋友十六歲，是個中學生，那天放學之後到了超級市場偷了不足100元的東西。過程給一名買菜的阿姐看見，然後便告訴了超市職員。後來我的朋友實在很害怕，就跑走了。請問他們會查出我朋友在哪裡讀書嗎？因為他穿了校服。。。但是他真的知錯了，很害怕，哭了很久了。請問職員會不會報案？會不會到學生的學校去抓捕人？我的朋友真的知錯了。
又一個社會寫照, 這網絡時代, Google search找答案。我不管是「我的朋友」抑或「我自己」, 這類東西我基本不會詳細討論, 並非因為對方是少年, 而是怕他們誤解了我的看法會教壞他們, 所以我只講:「叫他寫篇悔過書來給我過目, 看完覺得他真誠悔過我就答你。」他/她卻不敢再寫來。
叫他放心, 不會,
回覆刪除不過人要學好, 盜竊成為習慣不好就影響將來,
呢啲細路要唬嚇下先得架, 否則一次得手, 下次又落手。不同對象我會用不同手法。
刪除South China Morning Post, 12 Feb 2000 (Cliff Buddle)
回覆刪除http://www.scmp.com/article/307891/barrister-barred-deceiving-university
Barrister George Chu Barred for Deceiving University
Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) has been suspended for six months after a disciplinary tribunal found he pretended to have a first class honours degree when applying for a scholarship at the University of Hong Kong.
George Chu Fung-chee, admitted to the Bar in 1994, also breached a promise to the university not to operate as a barrister once he became a post-graduate student, the Barristers' Disciplinary Tribunal found.
The suspension was the longest to be imposed since 1996, and the tribunal took the unusual step of ordering that its findings be sent to the Secretary for Justice, Director of Legal Aid, the Law Society and all barristers.
Bar Association chairman Ronny Tong Ka-wah SC, said it had recently started requesting the tribunal to order publication of this kind in appropriate cases.
'There is an educational element in the decisions themselves,' he said.
'There is also a need for an increase in transparency in the profession. Those of us who have unfortunately committed disciplinary offences should be made known to the public.' Referring to Mr Chu's suspension, Mr Tong said: 'This is a serious case. In these circumstances it is only right that it be made known.' Bar Association honorary secretary Ambrose Ho said further changes which would make disciplinary decisions more transparent were being considered, but they might require amending current laws.
'We hope that by publishing the details of a conviction it might help our own members in complying with our regulations,' he said.
Mr Chu, whose suspension began on February 1 2000, was found guilty in relation to five complaints of professional misconduct.
He was convicted of falsely stating that his degree in economics and political science, awarded by the University of Waterloo, in Canada, was a first class honours degree.
The misrepresentation was used to support an application for admission to the university in March 1997, for post-graduate studentship in early September 1997, and for a scholarship at the end of that month.
He was also found to have worked as a barrister in September and October 1997, despite promising the university he would not, and signing an eligibility document stating he was not engaged in paid employment.
Mr Chu has the right to appeal against the tribunal's decision in the Court of Appeal.
He could not be contacted for comment.
=> 當年朱奉慈大律師虛報學歷點解淨係釘牌無坐到監？
沒有刑事檢控。
刪除點解唔刑事檢控朱奉慈大律師呢？佢係用不誠實手段取得財產 (Obtaining Property By Deception) 喎！
刪除I don't have much detail of the case...may be the prosecution thought that it was not easy to establish the causal connection between the deception and the pecuniary advantage so obtained.
刪除I think Barrister George Chu (朱奉慈大律師) should be prosecuted for the crime of obtaining property (or a pecuniary advantage) by deception.
刪除最近某電視台播映一套律政题材的劇集，其中一宗案件，令我感疑惑。
回覆刪除事缘有甲乙兩人合資購買一注六合彩，各佔一半。彩票由甲購買，幸運號碼亦交其決定，當時有多人在場見証。豈料後來乙突然改變主意，私下向甲提供三個號碼，囑其務必下注；至於其餘號碼，則由甲決定。新安排只有他們兩人知道。
結果這三個號碼全部落空，該注没有中獎。但甲卻在當日多買另一注電腦票，並中了二獎。乙發現之後，堅持要瓜分，且否認曾提出三個號碼。甲當然拒絕，於是乙報警。甲遭警拘控，罪名是盗竊。
想請教一下，何以這私人錢債糾紛，會牽涉刑事成份？
警察根本不會接受報案, 當然是民事性質。
刪除I was fascinated by lottery dispute when I did contract law. In WU CHIU KUEN v CHU SHUI CHING [1992], the plaintiff's report to the police was to no avail.
刪除Interesting yet very simple issue of credibility on balance.
刪除最搞笑係劇中有律政司人員話ONE要留案底
刪除撤銷控罪都要留案底，好野
TVB is hopeless. It should hire Bill Siu to be its adviser and improve the accuracy of its court room dramas.
刪除http://news.stheadline.com/dailynews/content_hk/2009/10/29/92606.asp 不少人都曾經夾錢或託朋友買六合彩，一名五十七歲兼職保安員○七年時，協助女性友人買六合彩，後發現中三獎，得三萬八千八百八十八元彩金，竟賴帳欺騙朋友沒有下注，圖私吞彩金，女事主報警，法庭昨日裁定，兼職保安員盜竊罪名成立，入獄六星期。本報記者
刪除裁判官指出，女事主能清楚講述當日所買的四注，共廿四個號碼，這種「超常巧合」不能存在，充份顯示被告于德澤（見圖）貪婪，想獨吞該筆彩金，明顯沒有悔意，須判即時入獄。
官轟被告無悔意
案情指，女事主是一名失婚中年婦，○七年時天水圍某酒樓用膳時委託被告買六合彩，並將「心水巴」寫在點心紙交給對方，後來發現中了三獎，豈料對方竟賴帳。被告目前依靠綜援維生，至今仍未尚還女事主彩金。
謝謝標少！看來是劇本編審的問題。
回覆刪除大台既野,果班專業人士睇到得啖笑而已...
刪除話明是drama,當然會有響發夢才會有的情節....
現實中是有類似個案的 http://news.stheadline.com/dailynews/content_hk/2009/10/29/92606.asp
刪除這例與留言講電視劇情不同。
刪除