HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN) AND OTHERS

The judge concluded that Mr Hudson is a competent forensic accountant whose specialized examination of progressive changes, methodology and pattern of accounting adjustments is relevant and necessary to assist the jury in determining whether the accused manipulated figures dishonestly; deficiencies in farm‑specific expertise go to weight, not admissibility; accordingly his expert evidence and two reports are admissible.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1803
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Accused: CHEN Keen (alias Jack CHEN); 2nd Accused: HAO May (formerly WANG May Yan) (alias May WANG); 3rd Accused: YEE Wenjye (also known as YU Wenjie) (alias Eric YEE)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Case Number
HCCC309/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conspiracy/fraud/false Representation / Trial — Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence
Outcome
Admitted — Mr Clive Russell Hudson permitted to give expert forensic accounting evidence and tender his two reports
Legal Topics
Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Relevance and Necessity of Expert Testimony, Expert Qualifications and Weight, Concealment and Intention, Role of Jury in Factual Disputes
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Evidence Forensic Accounting Fraud Conspiracy Securities/listing Rules Admissibility of Expert Evidence Relevance and Necessity of Expert Testimony +3 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 4 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHEN Keen (alias Jack CHEN)

1st Accused

HAO May (formerly WANG May Yan) (alias May WANG)

2nd Accused

YEE Wenjye (also known as YU Wenjie) (alias Eric YEE)

3rd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Conspiracy/fraud/false Representation / Trial — Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Hudson’s accounting evidence is admissible to assist the jury on Counts 2 and 4
  2. 2 Whether the concealment allegation central to the prosecution has been negated by ShineWing evidence
  3. 3 Whether Mr Hudson’s instructions misunderstood the nature of Appendix II and thus rendered his evidence irrelevant

Ratio Decidendi

The judge concluded that Mr Hudson is a competent forensic accountant whose specialized examination of progressive changes, methodology and pattern of accounting adjustments is relevant and necessary to assist the jury in determining whether the accused manipulated figures dishonestly; deficiencies in farm‑specific expertise go to weight, not admissibility; accordingly his expert evidence and two reports are admissible.

Court Disposition

Admitted — Mr Clive Russell Hudson permitted to give expert forensic accounting evidence and tender his two reports

Orders

  • Mr Hudson is permitted to give expert evidence as a forensic accountant
  • Mr Hudson may tender his two reports dated 4 February 2021 and 25 March 2021 to the jury