HKSAR v. TANG TZE HOO ANTHONY

HKSAR v. TANG TZE HOO ANTHONY

Given the appellant's role as director, his knowledge of the duty to keep books, his repeated inadequate enquiries and failure to take corrective steps, the only irresistible inference was that he knowingly and wilfully authorised or permitted the default; the s274 statutory defence of honesty and excusability was not established and Browne v Dunn did not preclude that inference. The conviction is therefore upheld.

Citation
HKSAR v. TANG TZE HOO ANTHONY
Parties
Appellant: Appellant; Respondent: HKSAR
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 February 2009
Case Number
HCMA775/2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (company Offence) / Appeal Against Conviction to Court of First Instance
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld
Legal Topics
Failure to Keep Books of Account, Directors' Duties, Statutory Defences Under Companies Ordinance, Browne V Dunn Cross Examination Rule
Source Language
EN
Company Law Criminal Law Evidence Failure to Keep Books of Account Directors' Duties Statutory Defences Under Companies Ordinance Browne V Dunn Cross Examination Rule

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Appellant

Appellant

HKSAR

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (company Offence) / Appeal Against Conviction to Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant knowingly and wilfully authorised or permitted failure to keep proper books of account contrary to s274 and s351(2) Companies Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether delegation of bookkeeping to another director absolved the appellant of liability
  3. 3 Whether the trial complied with the Browne v Dunn requirement to put the allegation of untruth to the witness

Ratio Decidendi

Given the appellant's role as director, his knowledge of the duty to keep books, his repeated inadequate enquiries and failure to take corrective steps, the only irresistible inference was that he knowingly and wilfully authorised or permitted the default; the s274 statutory defence of honesty and excusability was not established and Browne v Dunn did not preclude that inference. The conviction is therefore upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Conviction affirmed