THE QUEEN v. KAN PING

THE QUEEN v. KAN PING

The court found on the evidence that the accused was in prima facie control of numerous assets and that the statutory presumption under s.10(2) was properly invoked; the accused failed to prove on the balance of probabilities satisfactory explanations for those assets or that they derived from legitimate sources, leaving unexplained wealth grossly disproportionate to official emoluments; conviction under s.10(1)(b) followed and custody was required for deterrence and breach of public trust.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. KAN PING
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Accused: KAN Ping
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Case Number
DCCC55/1974
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prevention of Bribery (cap.201) / Trial Judgment and Sentencing
Outcome
Guilty on charge under s.10(1)(b) Prevention of Bribery Ordinance
Legal Topics
Unexplained Wealth, Statutory Presumption of Control S.10(2), Definition of Control, Burden of Proof Satisfactory Explanation, Forfeiture and Sentencing
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Evidence Law Property Law Financial Crime Unexplained Wealth Statutory Presumption of Control S.10(2) Definition of Control +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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

KAN Ping

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prevention of Bribery (cap.201) / Trial Judgment and Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the accused was 'in control of pecuniary resources or property disproportionate to his official emoluments' under s.10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether s.10(2) presumption applies to assets held by close relatives or associates and shifts burden to accused to give a satisfactory explanation
  3. 3 Whether the accused provided satisfactory explanations on the balance of probabilities for the contested assets and alleged share profits

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on the evidence that the accused was in prima facie control of numerous assets and that the statutory presumption under s.10(2) was properly invoked; the accused failed to prove on the balance of probabilities satisfactory explanations for those assets or that they derived from legitimate sources, leaving unexplained wealth grossly disproportionate to official emoluments; conviction under s.10(1)(b) followed and custody was required for deterrence and breach of public trust.

Court Disposition

Guilty on charge under s.10(1)(b) Prevention of Bribery Ordinance

Orders

  • Imprisonment for 2 years