(中文) 简介

如果一名银行客户因为一名银行雇员的欺诈行为而遭受损失，银行需要负上法律责任吗？被欺诈的客户针对银行又可以寻求哪些救济方式呢？在最近的陆颖恩对招商永隆银行有限公司 [2021] HKCFI 279一案中，香港法院原讼法庭裁定被告人招商永隆银行不需要对其雇员欺诈客户所造成的损失负上法律责任。法庭在判决中详细讨论及审视了转承责任及Quincecare责任方面的法律，并确立了重要的法律原则。

背景事实

原告人为被告人银行 (下称「银行」) 的客户，涉事的银行雇员(下称「该雇员」)当时于北角分行任职证券经理。原告人是该雇员欺诈投资计划的其中一名受害者。

该雇员向原告人提出可让原告人参与只提供给银行雇员的「内部」投资，而该等「内部」投资将产生极高的回报 (大约是一般银行定期存款回报的100倍)。

原告人信以为真，并于2010年至2013年间将约3,500万港元转到该雇员的私人银行帐户用作「内部」投资。该雇员伪造收据、结单及其他记录，并前后向原告人支付约1,130万港元的「回报」，令原告人相信她转给该雇员的3,500万港元全部用作「内部」投资。

该雇员的欺诈行为于 2014 年 3 月曝光。该雇员继而受到刑事检控，被判定三项欺诈罪，并判处监禁 10 年。在整个欺诈投资计划中，原告人损失了约2,380万港元。

原告人其后向银行提起诉讼，要求银行赔偿她的损失。就此，法庭需要处理的议题是，银行是否需要对原告人因其雇员的欺诈行为而遭受的损失负上法律责任。

转承责任

首先，原告人依赖转承责任的原则向银行申索。该原则下雇主在某些情况下需要为其雇员的侵权行为 (tort) 负上法律责任。

在雇佣关系的情况下，香港终审法院于Ming An Insurance Co (HK) Ltd v Ritz-Carlton Ltd 一案中就转承责任的认定确立了「密切联系」测试 (“close connection” test)。该测试的准则是，雇员的未经授权侵权行为与其受雇工作的联系是否如此密切，以致于法庭裁定雇主须负上转承责任是公平公正 (fair and just) 的？

在本案中，法庭认为，由于侵权行为可能出现的情况是无限 (infinite) 的，「密切联系」测试无可避免地缺乏精确性 (lack of precision)，因此并非在所有情况下都适用。 法院认为，在涉及雇员欺诈行为的案件中，认定转承责任的法律测试应该是雇员的欺诈行为是否属于雇主实际或表见代理 (apparent authority) 的范围。 一般而言，表见代理成立的条件是:-

(1) 委托人 (principal) 以言语或行为向第三方表示 (represent)，代理人 (agent) 有权从事有关交易；

(2) 第三方依赖该陈述 (representation) 进行交易; 及

(3) 该等依赖是合理的。

就此，法庭接纳银行的说法认为银行不可能打算或授权其雇员代表银行向外部人员提供内部投资计划。法庭更指出，认为银行的雇员出售证券产品的表见代理权限会扩大至销售任何类型产品的权限，包括外部人员明确知道是银行无法提供给外部人员的投资产品，这样的想法是不合逻辑的。因此，法庭裁定银行没有表示或向外宣称 (hold out) 该雇员有权向原告人提供该等内部投资计划，而原告人亦不会有任何实际依赖 (actual reliance)，因此转承责任不成立。

Quincecare责任

除了转承责任外，原告人亦依赖Quincecare 责任向银行提出申索，该责任指当银行应当知道 (put on inquiry) 某授权代理人 (authorised agent) 发出的交易指令是为了欺骗 (attempt to defraud) 该客户时，银行有责任避免执行该代理人发出的交易指令。

然而，法庭指出，Quincecare 责任一般只有在银行收到代表客户作出的命令或指示，即从客户的授权代理人收到的命令或指示，而不是直接从客户收到指令或指示才适用。在本案中，由于付款指示是由原告人直接发出，且原告是有意向收款人支付款项的，因此Quincecare责任并不适用。法庭认为，原告人的损失不是由银行的任何疏忽或失职造成的，而是由「她自己的贪婪及轻信」 (her own greed and gullibility) 所造成的。

同时，法庭拒绝将Quincecare责任的范围扩大至银行需判断付款指示是否是任何人以任何方式欺骗客户的任何计划的一部分 (a duty arising whenever a bank has reasonable grounds for believing that the instructed payment is part of any scheme perpetrated by any person to defraud the customer in any way)。这种扩大的责任范围无疑会让银行执行客户指示的效率变低，且严重阻碍银行的首要责任。

评论及要点

毋庸置疑，银行界会欢迎陆颖恩案的裁决，特别是法庭确认了Quincecare责任的有限适用范围，并且拒绝将银行的责任范围扩大。然而，随着银行在人工智能以及金融科技领域的进一步发展，银行可能需要考虑制定并采取适当的监管措施，合法监管银行职员的行为，保障银行客户的利益。同时，在所有涉及客户代理人发出的交易指令或指示时，银行应该额外保持警惕，以确保完善履行Quincecare责任。　

本文由本所合伙人﹑银行及金融部和诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师和黄晊晄律师撰写。若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidi.chui@sw-hk.com)。

于本文中提供的一切资料仅供参考，不构成任何法律意见，资料亦受制于适用规定及法例不时的更新与修改。若需取得相关法律意见，须咨询法律顾问。

In such an international and cosmopolitan city as Hong Kong, it is not unusual for a spouse to seek to commence divorce proceedings against his / her partner who is overseas. This article illustrates how we may serve divorce petitions out of Hong Kong to commence the proceedings.

Laws on the Service of Divorce Petitions Overseas

Service of a writ out of the jurisdiction of Hong Kong is permissible with the leave of the court generally. However, service out of jurisdiction for divorce petitions is an exception and the Hong Kong Matrimonial Causes Rules specifically provides that no leave is required.

Whilst it is not necessary to seek prior permission to serve the divorce petitions, the mode of service in the laws of the jurisdiction in which the papers have to be served must be followed.

Examples on Serving Divorce Petitions Overseas

Here are some of the examples we have come across.

In the U.K., the U.S.A. and Australia, the service of process can be effected directly by post, through a local lawyer, the judicial authority, or even a private investigator.

In mainland China, Germany and India, service can only be effected through their respective central authorities.

In the Philippines, we can only effect such service on nationals of the originating state.

Some jurisdictions may require that the translation of the documents to their corresponding official languages be appended. For documents to be served on a spouse in mainland China, generally, the documents should be in Chinese, or else a translation in Chinese should be attached. For documents to be served on a spouse in Germany, the German translation of the documents has to be served.

If it cannot be proved to the satisfaction of the Hong Kong court that the documents have been properly served, the proceedings cannot move forward. It is therefore essential that proper legal advice is sought so as to avoid frustration and disappointment.

This article is co-authored by our experienced Private Client Team – our Partners Catherine Por and Wendy Lam, and our Senior Associates Karl Wong and Calvin Lo. Please contact our Ms Catherine Por or Ms Wendy Lam for any further enquiries or information.

This newsletter is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.

On 1 May 2021, the China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC) announced its new Panel of Arbitrators. Our Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department, Ms. Heidi Chui, has been appointed as one of the panel arbitrators (effective as from 1 May 2021).

With the aim of building a team of professional and international arbitrators of high quality, the CIETAC Arbitrator Qualification Review Committee announced the appointment of new Panel of Arbitrators after rigorous and strict assessment of the their professional expertise, social influence, professional ethics, past experience, with external evaluation.

About China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission

CIETAC is the earliest and largest commercial arbitration institution in China and one of the major permanent arbitration institutions in the world. CIETAC aims to resolve international and domestic economic and trade disputes and international investment disputes independently and impartially by means of arbitration.

Please contact our Partner Ms. Heidi Chui (heidi.chui@sw-hk.com) for any enquiries or click here to view the news of CIETAC and the Panel of Arbitrators (available in Chinese only).

The HKSAR Government announced in November last year (2020) that the annual quota of the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme (“QMAS”) has been increased from 1,000 to 2,000 with a view to enlarging Hong Kong’s talent pool and strengthening its role as Asia’s World City. It is expected that more QMAS applicants will benefit from such increase in quota.

QMAS is an admission scheme for global talents (including those from Mainland China) to settle in Hong Kong. Applicants may obtain a visa to settle in Hong Kong through the scoring mechanism and the subsequent selection process under QMAS. Successful applicants are not required to secure a job offer before coming to settle in Hong Kong with the QMAS visa granted. QMAS visa holders may work or establish a business in Hong Kong and after continuous residence in Hong Kong for 7 years, may be eligible to apply for permanent residency in Hong Kong.

If you wish to know more or would like to consult us about visa or immigration matters, please contact us at samsonwong.office@sw-hk.com or +852 2533 2520.

This newsletter is for information purposes only. Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such. Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage arising from or in connection with any decision made, action or inaction taken in reliance on the information set out herein.

(中文) 2021 年4月24日，南京市律师协会主办的 “涉外培训导师库” 在市律协报告厅举行成立仪式。本所合伙人﹑银行及金融部和诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师，获邀加入首批 “涉外律师人才培养导师” 成员之一。

为在南京建立一支通晓国际规则、具有国际视野的涉外法律服务队伍，南京市律协决定成立 “涉外律师人才培养导师团”，以进一步提升南京律师从事涉外法律服务的专业能力。

如阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人徐凯怡律师 (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com)。

(中文) 2021年4月30日, 本所合伙人、 银行与金融部主管徐凯怡律师应华夏银行香港分行 (“华夏”) 邀请担任专业培训讲师﹐为华夏的管理层和员工分享跨境融资业务的法律实务要点。

左起: 本所注册外地律师邓商琳﹑本所合伙人、 银行与金融部主管徐凯怡律师﹑华夏银行 (香港) 副行长林风华女士﹑法律合规部总经理李淇先生和本所公司秘书服务部主管王燕华女士

徐律师在课程上介绍了各项跨境融资业务产品，如内保外贷﹑外保内贷及债券投资等﹐以及不同担保方式或抵押品的法律操作要点。她亦就信贷文件之法律风险和签立文件及注册书须知等热点问题作出了详尽的解说。最后, 徐律师探讨了香港特区政府和香港金管局最新出台的措施和未来计划，包括「债券通」南向交易﹑「绿色及可持续债券市场」和「跨境理财通」等。此次培训全面强化了与会者对跨境融资产品及相关法律实务的理解，并与在场的参会客户在不同领域有更深的交流。

若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所合伙人徐凯怡律师 (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com)。