Facts Admitted
5. The amended summary prepared by the prosecution did not only cover the events of the money laundering charges but also the background facts leading to those offences.6. Briefly, the Accused admitted that he and his girlfriend “Poon” met in July 2017. One month later, they became lovers with intimate relationship. In early December 2017, Poon was around 5 weeks pregnant.
7. In the morning of 8 February 2018, the Accused and Poon departed HK for Taiwan. The Accused was the one who paid for the air tickets and the hotel accommodation.
8. In the small hours of 17 February 2018, Poon’s mother received a WhatsApp message from Poon, saying that she would return to HK later that night. However, Poon then became out of touch. On 5 March 2018, Poon’s mother made a missing person report to the police. She had also found at her residence a copy of the Accused’s Taiwan Entry and Exit Permit.
9. As for the Accused, he returned from Taiwan to HK on the night of 17 February 2018. On 13 March 2018, he was interviewed by the police. In the course of the interview, the Accused admitted that he had killed Poon in Taiwan. Therefore, he was immediately arrested for the offence of murder and was cautioned.
10. Under caution, the Accused disclosed that he had buried the body of Poon at a piece of grassland in Taipei. The Accused also revealed further particulars during the subsequent video-recorded interviews, including his claim that he had an argument with Poon in the early hours of 17 February 2018 over how their luggage should be packed; as well as an assertion that they later had another argument during which Poon had told him that the baby belonged to her former boyfriend and that Poon had shown him a video capturing Poon and a male having sex.
11. According to the Accused, feeling agitated at the time, he hit Poon’s head against the wall and strangled her from behind with both hands. There followed a struggle with Poon on the floor for about 10 minutes until Poon was dead. The Accused then put Poon’s body into a suitcase and packed her personal belongings into four plastic bags.
12. The Accused, however, admitted that he had kept Poon’s HSBC ATM card; digital camera and iPhone. The following morning, the Accused first disposed of Poon’s belongings at different refuse collection points near the hotel. He then took the suitcase with Poon’s body and travelled by train to search for a place for disposal which he eventually did at a park.
13. Concerning Poon’s properties which he had taken away, the Accused admitted that he had used Poon’s ATM card to withdraw TWD 20,000 cash in Taipei with a view to buying some new clothes for himself. However, he did not do so eventually.
14. When the Accused returned to HK, he had brought with him the ATM card, the camera, the phone and the cash of TWD 20,000. These are the properties the Accused dealt with in respect of the first charge and their total value was about HK$13,500.
15. In respect of the 2nd to the 4th charges, they respectively concerned the Accused’s use of Poon’s ATM card to withdraw cash in HK. All three instances were captured by the relevant CCTV footages.
16. Individually, on 19 February 2018, the Accused withdrew HK$10,500. Out of this sum, he deposited HK$10,300 into his Bank of East Asia credit card account. This is the subject matter of the 2nd charge.
17. On 20 February 2018, the Accused withdrew HK$8,500 and he then deposited the same amount into his DBS credit card account. This is the subject matter of the 3rd charge.
18. On 21 February 2018, the Accused withdrew HK$200 from the bank by using Poon’s ATM card. This is the subject matter of the 4th charge.
(HKSAR and Chan Tong Kai HCCC 407/2018)
42. That said, it is understandable that great frustration and a genuine sense of unfairness, to say the least, would be felt when an accused’s admission about killing someone outside this jurisdiction could not be a basis to bring a murder/manslaughter charge in HK. However, justice equally demands that an accused is to be sentenced on the basis of the offences with which he has been charged and of which he has been convicted, not on any other offences or matters, albeit matters which may disclose much greater criminality than the offences charged.
不論大教授或小市民, 都可以用普通常識來吹水, 講完之後, 拍拍屁股, 無需負任何責任去解決實際問題, 既然沒有責任, 就可以在集體不用負責制下胡謅一番, 可以侃侃而談一切的陰謀論, 否則又怎能凸顯與眾不同之處。我重提彭官這篇判詞, 是因為寫完上一篇後, 怕自己記憶有誤才翻出來看, 彭官也說陳同佳案無需交付高院審訊的。我雖然提出台方可依賴這判詞來作盤問陳同佳的依據, 最終的問題是, 如果陳同佳改變主意不去投案, 那就成全因此事想撈政治油水的人, 可繼續炒作了。
這是被告在法官席前認罪兼同意的案情, 是強而有力的judicial admission, 概括了警方調查所得的證據, 比起單靠警方對被告警誡下所承認的證供更強, 因為在警方警誡下所承認的犯案經過, 被告有可能在事後翻供反對呈堂, 爭議該證供的自願性。判詞在公眾網域可自由下載, 還有需要港警呈交資料給台警嗎? 現在的問題反而是台灣地檢署是否接納陳同佳惱怒下殺人的講法, 若不接納, 就要靠台警自己調查, 港警已無權再傳訊陳同佳了。拜託, 別再說香港法庭對陳同佳在台殺人有司法管轄權, 這方面彭官在判詞也提過:
不論大教授或小市民, 都可以用普通常識來吹水, 講完之後, 拍拍屁股, 無需負任何責任去解決實際問題, 既然沒有責任, 就可以在集體不用負責制下胡謅一番, 可以侃侃而談一切的陰謀論, 否則又怎能凸顯與眾不同之處。我重提彭官這篇判詞, 是因為寫完上一篇後, 怕自己記憶有誤才翻出來看, 彭官也說陳同佳案無需交付高院審訊的。我雖然提出台方可依賴這判詞來作盤問陳同佳的依據, 最終的問題是, 如果陳同佳改變主意不去投案, 那就成全因此事想撈政治油水的人, 可繼續炒作了。
