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

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

SEHK officers (Mr Wong and Ms Ngai) are permitted to give evidence about their understanding and application of the Ordinance and Listing Rules insofar as that explains how they carried out the SEHK's duties on the basis of proved facts or facts the prosecution expects to prove; however definitive legal construction of the Listing Rules is for the court and the jury must follow judicial directions if the witnesses' views diverge from the correct legal position; hypothetical or purely theoretical questions and general legal pronouncements by the witnesses are inadmissible.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3046
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Accused: CHEN KEEN (alias JACK CHEN); 2nd Accused: HAO MAY (formerly WANG MAY YAN) (alias MAY WANG); 3rd Accused: YEE WENJIE (also known as YU WENJIE) (alias ERIC YEE)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 October 2021
Case Number
HCCC309/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal (conspiracy to Defraud / Fraud) / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Witness Testimony
Outcome
Application partly refused and partly allowed
Legal Topics
Listing Rules Interpretation, Admissibility of Opinion Evidence, Expert Evidence, Duty of Stock Exchange (sehk), Jury Directions, Connected Transactions and Disclosure
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Securities Regulation Evidence Administrative Law Listing Rules Interpretation Admissibility of Opinion Evidence Expert Evidence Duty of Stock Exchange (sehk) +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 10 Party arguments 2
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 WENJIE (also known as YU WENJIE) (alias ERIC YEE)

3rd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal (conspiracy to Defraud / Fraud) / Pre Trial Evidentiary Ruling on Admissibility of Witness Testimony

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SEHK officers may testify as to the meaning or correct application of Listing Rules
  2. 2 Whether witnesses may give opinion evidence on breaches or interpretation of Listing Rules
  3. 3 Relevance of SEHK witnesses' understanding/application of Rules to charges of conspiracy to defraud or fraud

Ratio Decidendi

SEHK officers (Mr Wong and Ms Ngai) are permitted to give evidence about their understanding and application of the Ordinance and Listing Rules insofar as that explains how they carried out the SEHK's duties on the basis of proved facts or facts the prosecution expects to prove; however definitive legal construction of the Listing Rules is for the court and the jury must follow judicial directions if the witnesses' views diverge from the correct legal position; hypothetical or purely theoretical questions and general legal pronouncements by the witnesses are inadmissible.

Court Disposition

Application partly refused and partly allowed

Orders

  • Mr Wong and Ms Ngai are permitted to testify about their understanding and application of the Securities and Futures Ordinance and the Listing Rules in the course of carrying out SEHK duties insofar as based on proved facts or facts the prosecution expects to prove
  • They may explain why they acted as they did and how they would have acted on the basis of those facts, including whether they considered a particular rule breached in that operational context