HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHEUNG KIN CHUNG AND OTHERS

The court refused the costs applications because, on the evidence and conduct of each accused (provision of contacts and emails, use of bank accounts in money circulation, appearance on corporate documents, simultaneous defaults, selective silence or late explanation), each had brought suspicion upon himself and/or misled the prosecution such that depriving them of costs was justified despite acquittal.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1487
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; Accused: 2nd Accused; Accused: 3rd Accused; Accused: 4th Accused
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 May 2021
Case Number
HCCC116/2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Costs Applications Following Acquittal (post Trial Decision)
Outcome
Applications for costs by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Accused refused.
Legal Topics
Acquittal Costs, Defendant Silence and Adverse Inferences, Conspiracy to Defraud, Use of Bank Accounts in Money Circulation, Discretion to Refuse Costs
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Procedure Costs Fraud Money Laundering Acquittal Costs Defendant Silence and Adverse Inferences Conspiracy to Defraud +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

2nd Accused

Accused

3rd Accused

Accused

4th Accused

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Costs Applications Following Acquittal (post Trial Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acquitted defendants should be awarded costs from public funds
  2. 2 Whether defendants' conduct prior to or during investigation and trial can justify depriving them of costs
  3. 3 Whether silence or selective answers can lead to refusal of costs

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused the costs applications because, on the evidence and conduct of each accused (provision of contacts and emails, use of bank accounts in money circulation, appearance on corporate documents, simultaneous defaults, selective silence or late explanation), each had brought suspicion upon himself and/or misled the prosecution such that depriving them of costs was justified despite acquittal.

Court Disposition

Applications for costs by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Accused refused.

Orders

  • 2nd Accused's application for costs refused
  • 3rd Accused's application for costs refused