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

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

The application for a certificate under s82(2)(b) CPO was refused because the principal questions identified were either pure questions of law (not certifiable under s82(2)(b)) or, in respect of fact/mixed questions, not reasonably arguable given the evidence and jury directions in this trial; grounds relating to Counts 2 and 4 and alleged unfairness from delay were likewise not reasonably arguable due to appropriate directions and the availability of alternative allegations to the jury.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 3156
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Accused: CHEN Keen; 2nd Accused: HAO May (formerly WANG May Yan); 3rd Accused: YEE Wenjye
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 December 2023
Case Number
HCCC309/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Indictment Involving Conspiracy to Defraud and Securities Matters / Application for Certification Under Section 82(2)(b) CPO (ruling Refusing Certification)
Outcome
Application for certification under section 82(2)(b) CPO refused
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Section 82 CPO Certification, Connected Transactions Under Listing Rules, Jury Directions, Delay and Witness Credibility
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Appeal Securities Law Evidence Procedural Law Conspiracy to Defraud Section 82 CPO Certification Connected Transactions Under Listing Rules +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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHEN Keen

1st Accused

HAO May (formerly WANG May Yan)

2nd Accused

YEE Wenjye

3rd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Indictment Involving Conspiracy to Defraud and Securities Matters / Application for Certification Under Section 82(2)(b) CPO (ruling Refusing Certification)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge can certify under s82(2)(b) CPO questions of law relating to the meaning of "connected transaction" and "connected persons" under the Listing Rules
  2. 2 Whether a conviction can rest on finding defendants were "working together" without establishing a "connected person" under the Listing Rules
  3. 3 Whether alleged false representations must be given a specialised Listing Rules meaning or an ordinary meaning when assessing falsity

Ratio Decidendi

The application for a certificate under s82(2)(b) CPO was refused because the principal questions identified were either pure questions of law (not certifiable under s82(2)(b)) or, in respect of fact/mixed questions, not reasonably arguable given the evidence and jury directions in this trial; grounds relating to Counts 2 and 4 and alleged unfairness from delay were likewise not reasonably arguable due to appropriate directions and the availability of alternative allegations to the jury.

Court Disposition

Application for certification under section 82(2)(b) CPO refused

Orders

  • Application for certificate refused