HKSAR v. LAU CHI HANG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LAU CHI HANG AND ANOTHER

Convictions affirmed because the Magistrate's credibility findings were justified on the evidence, acceptance of the coupon could be inferred without proof of physical taking, the mis‑statement of an additional donor was immaterial or amendable, characterising the coupon as gift or service would not change the outcome, and any service partly received in Hong Kong suffices for jurisdiction; there was no lurking doubt to overturn the convictions.

Citation
HKSAR v. LAU CHI HANG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: LAU Chi-Hang; 2nd Appellant: KWAN Tin-ming
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 January 2003
Case Number
HCMA744/2002
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions affirmed
Legal Topics
Bribery, Acceptance of Advantage, Evidence and Credibility, Particulars and Amendment, Jurisdictional Scope of Offence
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Bribery Acceptance of Advantage Evidence and Credibility Particulars and Amendment Jurisdictional Scope of Offence

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

LAU Chi-Hang

1st Appellant

KWAN Tin-ming

2nd Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether acceptance of an advantage requires physical taking of the item
  2. 2 Whether the coupon constituted a gift of property or a service
  3. 3 Whether mis‑naming an alleged donor in particulars undermines conviction

Ratio Decidendi

Convictions affirmed because the Magistrate's credibility findings were justified on the evidence, acceptance of the coupon could be inferred without proof of physical taking, the mis‑statement of an additional donor was immaterial or amendable, characterising the coupon as gift or service would not change the outcome, and any service partly received in Hong Kong suffices for jurisdiction; there was no lurking doubt to overturn the convictions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions affirmed

Orders

  • Conviction of 1st appellant under s.3 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance confirmed
  • Conviction of 2nd appellant under s.8(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance confirmed