由賭徒推翻的案例

1仔在上一篇留言提醒我早幾天英國最高法院的新案例: Ivey (Appellant) v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords (Respondent) [2017] UKSC 67。這件案是千王之王的橋段, 撇開法律討論, 單看案情已引人入勝。我是從未入過賭埸賭搏的人, 一面閱讀本案, 一面要上網找尋資料, 甚至去看youtube的示範來理解這賭徒的出千, well, 或者叫出古惑的手法。

Phil Ivey在世界撲克界聲名顯赫, 排名在世界前幾位, 有撲克界的Tiger Wood之稱, 因為樣貌有幾分似, 而且都是美國人。2012年他到倫敦的Genting Casinos賭錢, 賭稱為北美百家樂(baccarat)的punto banco。這種北美百家樂毫無技巧可言, 賭客與庄家對賭, 閒家也可參與。賭法很簡單, 基本上派兩隻牌, 以兩隻加起來的點數最近9點為勝, 若加起來是兩位數, 就只算個位的點數, 譬如拿到7和8, 那點數就是5點, 因為不要10位。所以拿到兩隻高點數的牌贏出的機會就大。本來這種賭法是很難落手出古惑的, 純粹講彩數, 賭客連啤牌也不觸碰, 觸碰過就很快會換一副新牌。

賭仔有很多迷信, 所以也可能有不同的古怪要求, 豪客的要求一般賭檯荷官(croupier)都會答應, 反正賭客不會觸碰啤牌, 而賭場也有監控,  不易出千。本案荷官是會說廣東話的Kathy Yau, 而夥同Ivey一起賭的是另一職業賭徒Cheung-yin Sun(孫小姐)。孫小姐在過程中有時以廣東話向荷官發出指示。那麼, 派牌就定生死的punto banco又怎樣出古惑呢? 製做啤牌的公司在印製啤牌的時候在背面都印有圖案, 這圖案不論是鑽石、圓圈或其他圖案, 有些是兩邊對稱的, 譬如左右兩邊的圓圈圖案都是完整的, 有些卻是一邊圖案完整而另一邊是破邊圖案, 這細微不對稱的分別, 一般人都看不出。原來這種背部圖案不對稱的啤牌, 譬如背部圖案左邊是破邊的, 會顯示到7, 8, 9等高點數牌來 。出古惑的機會就出現了。首先條件就要有一副背部圖案花紋左右不對稱的, 其次就要操控翻牌的方法以便之後使用同一副牌時左右方向沒有改變。這種古惑叫edge-sorting, 即憑着牌邊來分辨。判辭有這描述:

17. Ms Yau then dealt the first coup. After the bet was made, and all the cards then dealt, the next stage was for the croupier to turn the cards face up to reveal whether Player or Banker had won. Ms Sun then asked Ms Yau in Cantonese to do it, in other words to turn the cards over so that the face showed, slowly. Ms Yau said “yes”. Ms Sun then asked her again in Cantonese to turn the cards in a particular and differential way as they were being exposed and before they were put on the pile of used cards. “If I say it is good, you turn it this way, good, yes? Um, no good.” (A slightly different sounding um). Ms Yau did not immediately understand what was required. She asked, “so you want me to leave it?” To which Ms Sun replied, “change, yeah, yeah, change luck”. Ms Yau: “what do you mean?” Ms Sun gestured how to turn it. “Turn it this way”. Ms Yau: “what, just open it? Yeah”. Ms Sun: “um”, signifying good in Cantonese.

18. The claimant then chipped in, “yeah, change the luck, that’s good. Anything to change the luck, it is okay with me.” Ms Sun reiterated her request in Cantonese, “If I say it is not good, you turn it this way. If it is good, turn it this way, okay?” To which Ms Yau said “okay”. When she turned over the cards of the second coup, Ms Sun said of four of them, “good”, and of one, “not good”, in Cantonese. Ms Yau did as requested. What she was being asked to do, and did, was to turn the cards which Ms Sun called as “good” end to end, and the “not good” cards side to side. In consequence, the long edge of the “not good” card was oriented in a different way from the long edge of the “good” cards. The judge found that she had been “wholly ignorant” of the significance of what she was doing, card by card, at the call of Ms Sun.

及後用洗牌機洗牌並不會調轉左右方向, Ivey看背部圖案就猜到那些牌可能點數大就會加大注碼。在兩天內他贏了7百70萬英鎊。賭場之後察覺Ivey用edge-sorting就不肯賠錢, 只肯退回1百萬鎊的賭本。Ivey為此興訟追討, 他對edge-sorting直認不諱, 但否認不誠實, 引用1982年的Ghosh案例作論據。Ghosh案例定出考慮不誠實意圖的兩部曲(two legs), 第一部以合理的普通人的標準去衡量行為是否誠實(objective test), 如果認為被告行為不屬於不誠實, 就判無罪, 如果認為被告行為不誠實, 就繼而考慮被告的心態(state of mind), 判斷被告是否真確地不知道客觀的不誠實標準(subjective test), 接納被告真的不知道就判他無罪。

Ivey案推翻了Ghosh的先客觀後主觀的考慮程序, 認為這太容易讓被告自圓其說:

74. These several considerations provide convincing grounds for holding that the second leg of the test propounded in Ghosh does not correctly represent the law and that directions based upon it ought no longer to be given. The test of dishonesty is as set out by Lord Nicholls in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan and by Lord Hoffmann in Barlow Clowes: see para 62 above. When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of his belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.

Ivey這件案是民事索償, 並非刑事的賭搏出千。英國最高法院藉本案矯正Ghosh的錯誤, 在民事案順便訂立了刑事案的新思維。香港法院一向都跟從及採用Ghosh案的判案考慮程序, 如果跟從Ivey案的新思維, 控方就比以前更易做了, 涉及不誠實案被告會難以再以扭曲了(warped)個人對誠實的標準來抗辯。香港法院是否跟從這案例還要拭目以待。去年12月終審法院在陳錦成案就不跟從去年英國最高法院在Jogee案對「合謀」(joint enterprise) 的新裁決。