下回分解

討論馬家健案的時候, 以「冤」案來描述是簡化了的用詞, 「冤」字是需要注腳的。「冤」案並不一定等如completely innocent, 我想就算代表他的香港大學法律學院首席講師張達明也不敢這樣講。上訴庭所講的是miscarriage of justice, 基於本案的特殊背景: 涉嫌是主謀(Hung Chi-Him)(Ah Him)的控罪撤銷了, 換了個扮演微末角色的人來頂罪。正如跳樑的變成正印演折子戲, 票友還會拍爛手掌叫好嗎? 故此在看這件案時別失去焦點。He is not guilty like hell, probably the other bloke is but he is not as innocent as a lamb. 如果兩人一起面對審訊, 控方不接受一個認罪撤銷另一個的控罪的plea bargaining, 兩個都去馬, 或者倒轉bargain, 撤銷的是馬家健的控罪, 不論結果, 都不會被視作miscarriage of justice。問題是針對Ah Him的證據看來比較弱, 而海關根據馬家健被捕時供出是應Ah Him要求, 把自己地址提供給Ah Him收取郵包的, 海關繼而在Ah Him家中也搜獲毒品(subject of another district court case), 除非Ah Him承認郵包是他的, 否則也要依靠馬家健來指證, 試問兩人屬同案被告, 馬家健怎指證Ah Him呢? 所以我也能夠理解控方為甚麼接受這plea bargaining, 可能因為針對Ah Him的證據弱, 加上反正都執了他一單地院案。這純屬個人猜測, 因為在上訴判詞看不到控方當初同案檢控Ah Him和馬家健時, 究竟有甚麼證據指證Ah Him。如果因此猜測當時的DPP是因本案而離職的, 就未免過份瞎扯了。 

有人問馬家健是否也涉妨礙司法公正, 這當然喇。套用上週五判刑的另一案為例,  獸父強姦女兒, 在家人游說下, 在強姦案審訊作證時, 受害人推翻口供, 獸父脫罪。警方跟進調查, 繼而檢控受害人一干家人妨礙司法公正罪, 受害人沒有被檢控, 而是被傳召為證人指證家人。一方面她是受害者, 另一方面靠她出來指證家人,  所以就不會檢控她。(我以前也寫過一篇性侵案受害人在庭上推翻口供而變被告的案件。)這種案件不是駕駛頂包案, 那種頂罪的人原本不是受害人, 所以活該被控。上一篇有人舉了謝庭鋒2002年的頂包案的例子, 其實他完全無需搞成這樣的, 不過前塵往事, 忘記他吧, 當時若有人問我, 我也不會教人脫身之計的。    

昨天new.com.au一篇轉載報導的新聞也相當有趣: Why Swedish government paid convicted drug dealer $2.3m in bitcoin

......
The Swedish government has to return about 14 million krona ($A2.3 million) worth of bitcoin to a convicted drug dealer after the value of his illegally earned crypto soared while he sat in prison.

Prosecutor Tove Kullberg explained to Swedish Radio that two years ago, she successfully argued in court that the drug pusher should be stripped of his proceeds, 36 bitcoins, which at the time were only worth around 1.1 million krona (about $A190,000), The Telegraph reported.

But by the time the Swedish Enforcement Authority began auctioning off the crypto, bitcoin had skyrocketed in value – and only three had to be sold to amount to the value that was booked as the dealer’s profit at the time of his arrest.

......

照報導看, 法庭充公贓款(proceeds of crime), 當時以36個比特幣的時價來計算, 充公該銀碼, 而並非充公36個比特幣, 才導致在比特幣價格上升下要回水給被告, 這被告忽然發達, 大概不用再糶灰了。相反而言, 若比特幣價格插水, 被告豈不是會欠下一屁股債。法庭判案時思念不周, 便造成這種結果。