HKSAR v. CHEUNG HON KEUNG

HKSAR v. CHEUNG HON KEUNG

The magistrate properly found on the evidence that the appellant deliberately omitted material outstanding debts when asked, intended that omission to operate on the minds of the lenders, and that the lenders were deceived and would not have granted the loans if the true indebtedness had been disclosed; the appellate court found those findings supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

Citation
HKSAR v. CHEUNG HON KEUNG
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: Cheung Hon Keung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 January 2004
Case Number
HCMA679/2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Court of First Instance Appellate Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions and findings upheld
Legal Topics
False Representation, Deception, Intention to Defraud, Creditworthiness, Evidence and Credibility, Appeal Safety Standard
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Fraud Banking and Finance Insolvency False Representation Deception Intention to Defraud Creditworthiness +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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Cheung Hon Keung

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy Appeal) / Court of First Instance Appellate Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether omission to disclose outstanding debts when specifically asked amounted to a deliberate false representation and deceit
  2. 2 Whether the appellant had the requisite intention to defraud at the time of the loan applications
  3. 3 Whether the lenders were actually deceived and would have declined the loans if true indebtedness had been known

Ratio Decidendi

The magistrate properly found on the evidence that the appellant deliberately omitted material outstanding debts when asked, intended that omission to operate on the minds of the lenders, and that the lenders were deceived and would not have granted the loans if the true indebtedness had been disclosed; the appellate court found those findings supported by the evidence and dismissed the appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions and findings upheld

Orders

  • Appeal against conviction dismissed
  • Convictions on both counts upheld