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

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

The application to reserve questions under s81 CPO was refused because the threshold of 'most exceptional circumstances' was not met: referral would cause undue and prejudicial delay, disrupt continuity of a long-running trial, risk loss of witnesses and judicial resources, and the issues could be addressed on appeal after trial or via existing appellate routes; there was insufficient evidential background to warrant a pre-trial reference.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 1802
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Accused: CHEN Keen; 2nd Accused: HAO May (formerly WANG May Yan)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 July 2023
Case Number
HCCC309/2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conspiracy to Defraud and Money Laundering (retrial) / Pre Trial Application Under Section 81 CPO to Reserve Questions of Law to Court of Appeal; Application Refused
Outcome
Application to reserve questions of law under section 81 CPO refused.
Legal Topics
Section 81 Criminal Procedure Ordinance Reservation, Conspiracy to Defraud, Connected Transaction/connected Persons Under Listing Rules, Policy Against Fragmentation of Criminal Process, Most Exceptional Circumstances Test
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Procedural Law Appeal/interlocutory Company/listing Rules Section 81 Criminal Procedure Ordinance Reservation Conspiracy to Defraud Connected Transaction/connected Persons Under Listing Rules Policy Against Fragmentation of Criminal Process +1 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

CHEN Keen

1st Accused

HAO May (formerly WANG May Yan)

2nd Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Conspiracy to Defraud and Money Laundering (retrial) / Pre Trial Application Under Section 81 CPO to Reserve Questions of Law to Court of Appeal; Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trial judge must direct a jury on the meaning of 'connected transaction' and 'connected persons' under the Listing Rules for falsity in a conspiracy to defraud charge
  2. 2 Whether conviction can be based on defendants 'working together' without establishing 'connected person' status under Listing Rules
  3. 3 Whether impugned representations must be given special Listing Rules meanings or ordinary meaning for assessing falsity

Ratio Decidendi

The application to reserve questions under s81 CPO was refused because the threshold of 'most exceptional circumstances' was not met: referral would cause undue and prejudicial delay, disrupt continuity of a long-running trial, risk loss of witnesses and judicial resources, and the issues could be addressed on appeal after trial or via existing appellate routes; there was insufficient evidential background to warrant a pre-trial reference.

Court Disposition

Application to reserve questions of law under section 81 CPO refused.

Orders

  • Application to reserve questions of law under section 81 CPO refused.
  • Proceedings to continue towards the scheduled retrial (subject to separate orders)