包攬訴訟﹝Champerty﹞正式名稱為「助訟與幫訟分利」，是指任何人提供金錢或其他形式，資助他人提出訴訟， 並在勝訴後攤分利益，在香港屬刑事罪行，但亦有國家容許索償公司合法經營。包攬訴訟不但可能令受害人因索償權利未被全面保障而招致損失，且間接鼓勵虛假訴 訟以騙取賠償，危害司法公義。
facts:
在2009年，一名索償代理及一名女律師以「不成功不收費」做招徠，替一名母親代車禍中殘障的兒子索取賠償，成功追討350萬元賠償out of court settlement，從中瓜分86萬元。代理因串謀助訟及包攬訴訟，被判入獄16個月，女律師被判入獄15個月，是本港首宗包攬訴訟案，涉案女律師今年5月獲准上訴至特區終審法院
On 25 June 2009, District Court Deputy Judge Albert Wong Sung-hau found recovery agent Cheung Oi-ping guilty of one count each of maintenance and champerty, while solicitor Winnie Lo Wai-yan was found guilty of one count of maintenance. He acquitted Cheung of one count each of theft and attempting to commit champerty, and both Cheung and Lo of aiding and abetting someone to commit perjury.
Maintenance is the practice of third parties supporting litigation by others, and champerty, being a specific species of maintenance according to the prosecution, occurs when a person funds a case to win a portion of the compensation.
Mr. Eric Kwok S.C., who defended Cheung, said it was unclear what actions were illegal under the charges and that guidelines on what constituted a breach did not exist until the Law Society consulted legal experts and issued a circular in 2005. He further urged the Judge to consider that maintenance was no longer considered to be a very serious offence and that recovery agents have long existed.
Lacking local case law in this area, Judge Wong held that according to a Court of Final Appeal judgment in a 2007 civil action, he had to evaluate whether the acts of the defendants were without justification and may have encouraged the perversion of justice and endangered the integrity of the judicial process, and whether they posed a genuine risk to the integrity of the court.
Cheung first approached the mother, Wong Siu-ying, at a hospital and said she could help her sue for damages. Cheung proposed a "no win, no fee" deal but Wong would have to give her 25% of any damages successfully obtained as a "service charge". Cheung then signed a contract with Wong and introduced her to Lo. Cheung and Lo never told Wong that she could apply for legal aid. When Wong eventually obtained her settlement, Cheung took HK$861,652 as her fees. In her defence, Lo maintained that she had no knowledge of Cheung's deal with Wong, a defence which the Judge found incredible and far-fetched.
2009-07-10]
香港涉及首宗包攬訴訟案，被裁定串 謀強行干預訴訟及分享訴訟成果罪成的女事務律師和索償代理，9日分別被判監15及16個月。區院暫委法官判案時怒斥兩被告人覬覦事主無知，取巧地利用法律 制度圖利，即使包攬訴訟控罪範疇已日漸縮窄，惟控罪仍有其存在價值，以保障司法公平及完整性。
Sing Tao Daily 本報記者蔡小慧香港報道
區域法院9日首次就 包攬訴訟的控罪作出判刑。40歲女事務律師盧蔚恩，就一項串謀強行干預訴訟罪名，被判囚15個月監禁；另一被告無業的張藹冰（39歲），被控串謀強行干預 訴訟和分享訴訟成果，被判囚16個月。9日兩被告有大批親友到庭支持，坐滿整個法庭。被告盧蔚恩更呈上大疊求情信，當中包括聖公會鄺保羅大主教及社會各階 層人士，均稱讚盧本性良好。
盧蔚恩呈大疊求情信
辯方資深大律師郭棟明求情時力陳，干預訴訟和分享訴訟成果控罪源遠流長，現今不少國家將其 定性為非刑事行為，英國更於1967年取消有關法例，香港從未有干預訴訟的定罪紀錄；至於分享訴訟成果的香港案例需追溯至上世紀1897年，當時的被告只 被判罰款，反映罪行性質輕微，遂建議判次被告接受社會服務令或緩刑。
不過，暫委法官黃崇厚判刑時引述2007年終審法院龔如心對王廷歆的判詞反駁稱，雖然包攬訴訟的控罪範疇已日漸縮窄，不過仍有破壞司法公平及完整性的風險，有違公共政策，不應視作歷史性的控罪，而是有存在的必要。
剝削事主應得賠償
法官又稱，雖然兩名被告沒惡意煽動訴訟，或令興訟其中一方受壓，但兩人明顯藉事主提出訴訟，取巧地利用法律程序，提出罔顧事主利益的賠償金安排，索取賠償後，安排當中87萬元作為服務費，剝削了事主應得的賠償，必須判處兩人入獄。
法 官怒斥自1995年取得律師資格的次被告盧蔚恩，利用其專業知識和身分犯案，雖然無證據顯示她瓜分到賠償金，但明顯協助首被告圖利，其行為有違她對法庭應 有的責任，及社會對律師的期望，亦動搖公眾對法庭和律師信心；但考慮盧背景良好，亦將面對香港律師會紀律聆訊，很大機會被扯奪律師資格，酌量減刑三個月。
「不成功不收費」游說
案 情透露，女事主黃少英的現年26歲兒子於2001年三月遇上交通意外，導致嚴重受傷。當時為索償代理的首被告張藹冰以「不成功、不收費」，游說黃索償，黃 終答允簽下合約文件，並由次被告盧蔚恩成為黃的委託律師處理申索。其後黃獲350萬元賠償，並將86萬元交給張作服務費。盧則為黃立下誓章，假稱有關金額已存於保險箱, 事件直至黃再到高院申請成為兒子 資產託管人，才遭法官揭發，下令追查。
CFA judgement
FINAL APPEAL NO. 2 OF 2011 (CRIMINAL)
(ON APPEAL FROM CACC
NO. 254 OF 2009)
終審法院昨於書面判詞中指出，助訟及包攬訴訟於本港屬刑事罪行，但英國及部份英聯邦國家已將之廢除，香港是否應保留，建議交由法律改革委員會跟進。
終院指出，助訟及包攬訴訟沒有違憲，本案關鍵在於原審法官裁定盧明知事件涉及包攬訴訟下行事，這項裁決亦獲得上訴庭接納。但終院翻看證供後，認為上述裁決不獲支持，證明上訴人清楚同案另一被告張譪冰意圖分享訴訟成果的計劃。法官亦認為上訴人本身沒有多收她應得的費用，亦未能證明上訴人從張拿走的八十七萬元中分得金錢 相反，證據顯示張可在盧不知情下透過操控傷者母親取得金錢。基於控方未能證明盧知道事件涉及包攬訴訟，原審法官以無關的資料來推斷，定罪未獲支持，故判盧上訴得直。
Ingredients of
maintenance and champerty
1.
In the fairly recent case of Unruh v. Seeberger (2007) 10 HKCFAR 31
this Court held that maintenance and champerty, whether sued upon as torts or
prosecuted as crimes, were still a part of the law of Hong Kong. Both as crimes and as torts, maintenance and
champerty have been abolished in England and Wales. In Massai
Aviation Services v. Attorney General of Bahamas [2007] UKPC 12 at para.12
the Privy Council referred to the Law Commission’s recommendations leading to
such abolition. The Law Commission
defined maintenance as “the giving of assistance or encouragement to one of the
parties to an action by a person who has neither an interest in the action nor
any other motive recognised by the law as justifying his interference” and
champerty as “a particular kind of maintenance, namely maintenance of an action
in consideration of a promise to give to the maintainer a share of the subject
matter or proceeds thereof, if the action succeeds”.
2.
Those definitions are
consistent with the meanings which Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ gave in Unruh v. Seeberger. I will proceed on those meanings. Champerty is maintenance for a share in the proceeds
of litigation. What champerty involves
will therefore become clear if and when what maintenance involves is made
clear.
3.
There are several ways in which
to approach the question of whether the ingredients of the offence of
maintenance (and those of the tort of maintenance, too) are sufficiently
certain to be constitutional. One is to
consider how a jury might be directed thereon.
4.
The jury could be told that the
first question is this. Has the
defendant officiously intermeddled with someone else’s litigation? In other words, has he interfered with
litigation which is no concern of his? If
“No”, then maintenance has not taken place.
But if “Yes”, then was the defendant’s motive charitable? If it was, then what he did would not be
maintenance. But if his motive was other
than charitable, what he did could be maintenance.
5.
At this stage, there might
arise the question of whether the defendant’s conduct falls outside the scope
of maintenance because his conduct comes within one of the categories excluded
from such scope. These excluded
categories are dealt with in paras 91-98 of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ’s judgment in
Unruh v. Seeberger. One of them consists of cases of legitimate
common interest. The second consists of
cases involving access to justice considerations. And the third is a miscellaneous category of
practices which have come to be regarded as lawful, such as the sale and
assignment by a trustee in bankruptcy to a purchaser for value of an action
commenced in the bankruptcy. Whether it
is necessary to go into the question of conduct being within an excluded
category depends on whether there is a real possibility that it might. And that depends on the circumstances of the
case.
6.
Even if every question so far
is answered against the defendant, there is still one more question to be
answered. On the totality of the
circumstances, did the defendant’s conduct pose a genuine risk to the integrity
of the court’s process? If “Yes” the
jury would be entitled to find the defendant guilty of maintenance. But if “No”, then the defendant must be
acquitted.
7.
If the charge is of champerty,
then the directions would of course have to cover one more ingredient, namely a
share of the proceeds of the litigation maintained.
8.
I do not offer the foregoing as
an all-encompassing specimen direction.
And, after all, even such a specimen would have be tailored to meet the
particular needs of any given case. But
I do think that directions along those lines – whether by a judge to a jury or
by a tribunal of both law and fact to itself – would convey the essence of the
ingredients of maintenance or, if that is the charge, champerty.
E. Solicitors and maintenance
E.1 Solicitors and the core
requirements
1.
As we have seen, at the core of
the offence of maintenance is “officious intermeddling” in someone else’s litigation
(whether as plaintiff or defendant).
“Officious intermeddling” denotes interfering with something that is not
one’s concern. On the face of the
charge, the prosecution would be in serious difficulty since it is hard to see
how Lo, having been instructed to act as Yeung’s attorney and solicitor on the
record by Yeung’s mother and next friend, could be said to have been “officiously
intermeddling” in that litigation or conspiring to do so.
Other cases
大律師梅國強於99至08年間先後在5宗民事索償案中，同申索人協議，訴訟成功後收取追討所得賠償的兩成半至三成作為佣金，合共 160多萬元，被裁定五項包攬訴訟罪名成立，判監三年半。今次是首宗大律師被裁定包攬訴訟罪成的案件。法官批評被告違反專業，利用客戶不熟悉索償法律程 序，違反對他們的誠信。
【明報專訊】律師夫婦與顧問公司顧問涉於2001年至07年間逾20次包攬訴訟，賠償額近800萬元。顧問涉轉介索償案件予律師行並成功索償後，收取賠償額的兩成作服務費，涉及逾144萬元。3人昨否認共26項「分享訴訟成果」罪名而受審。
3人否認26項罪名
3名被告依次為葉漢明（60歲）、楊潤康（44歲）及楊妻羅婉清（49歲），楊和羅均為律師，同為楊潤康律師行合伙人。控方開案陳辭指出，葉及羅的母親均為捷利專業顧問有限公司的董事和股東，涉及包攬訴訟的民事索償工傷及交通意外索償共26宗，索償對象包括港鐵及大快活等。大部分受傷的事主經由朋友介紹認識葉，葉聲稱其顧問公司可提供法律服務協助他們申索，並把個案轉介至楊和羅的律師行。葉聲稱「不成功不收費」，若事主成功申索，公司便會收取賠償金額的17%至20%作服務費用，案發期間收取總金額逾144萬元。3名被告於2010年12月14日被捕。
車禍受傷賠償 兩成作服務費
其中一名申索人為任速遞員的馮應樑，他於03年4月遇上交通意外受傷，馮遂透過葉的顧問公司委託楊潤康律師行提出索償，其間馮簽署追討意外賠償服務協議書和授權書等文件，當中條款列明，馮要以申索賠償兩成支付予顧問公司的服務費，並授權律師行把服務費交予顧問公司。
馮的案件於05年達成和解，馮獲賠償17萬元，當中兩成被扣除作顧問服務費，並透過律師行以支票形式交予葉，其間馮沒有直接向律師行支付法律費用。馮昨接受辯方盤問時承認，委託律師行時曾簽署「聘書」，若他撤回索償或敗訴，便要支費每小時3500元律師費。
沒有留言:
張貼留言