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

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

The court held that the pleaded particulars should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and are not confined to the Listing Rules; the prosecution is not required to prove the acquisition was a 'connected transaction' under the Listing Rules and may present the case using the 'working together on the same side' formulation; contractual interpretation issues (21 propositions) are deferred until after prosecution evidence is heard.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1683
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Accused: CHEN Keen (aka Jack CHEN); 2nd Accused: HAO May (formerly WANG May Yan); 3rd Accused: YEE Wenjye (aka YU Wenjie; Eric YEE)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 June 2023
Case Number
HCCC309/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conspiracy to Defraud / Pre Trial Ruling on Legal Issues (prior to Retrial)
Outcome
Court ruled in favour of the prosecution on the legal certainty issue: particulars to be given their ordinary meaning; prosecution not required to prove a 'connected transaction' under Listing Rules; 'working together on the same side' formulation permitted; contractual propositions deferred.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Legal Certainty, Listing Rules Interpretation, Director Fiduciary Duties, Disclosure Obligations, Connected Transactions
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Securities Law Company Law Procedural Law Conspiracy to Defraud Legal Certainty Listing Rules Interpretation Director Fiduciary Duties +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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHEN Keen (aka Jack CHEN)

1st Accused

HAO May (formerly WANG May Yan)

2nd Accused

YEE Wenjye (aka YU Wenjie; Eric YEE)

3rd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Conspiracy to Defraud / Pre Trial Ruling on Legal Issues (prior to Retrial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether particulars alleging dishonest means must be read in the specific legal context of the Listing Rules
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution must prove the acquisition was a 'connected transaction' under the Listing Rules
  3. 3 Whether ordinary phrases in the indictment (eg 'working together','independent third parties','no existing or prior relationship') require Listing Rules definitions to ensure legal certainty

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the pleaded particulars should be given their plain and ordinary meaning and are not confined to the Listing Rules; the prosecution is not required to prove the acquisition was a 'connected transaction' under the Listing Rules and may present the case using the 'working together on the same side' formulation; contractual interpretation issues (21 propositions) are deferred until after prosecution evidence is heard.

Court Disposition

Court ruled in favour of the prosecution on the legal certainty issue: particulars to be given their ordinary meaning; prosecution not required to prove a 'connected transaction' under Listing Rules; 'working together on the same side' formulation permitted; contractual propositions deferred.

Orders

  • Phrases in particulars (a)–(c) to be given their plain and ordinary meaning
  • Prosecution may present its case on the basis that D1 and D2 were "working together on the same side"