HKSAR v. LAM HONG AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LAM HONG AND ANOTHER

Conspiracy to defraud encompasses dishonest schemes that risk prejudicing rights which would have existed but for the fraud; there is no meaningful legal distinction between present proprietary rights and contingent rights which would have arisen absent the fraud; therefore no novel point of law of great and general importance was shown and the application for a certificate under s.32 is dismissed.

Citation
HKSAR v. LAM HONG AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Applicant: LAM HONG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 December 2005
Case Number
HCMA989/2001
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (conspiracy to Defraud) / Application for Certificate Under Section 32 of Court of Final Appeal Ordinance After Convictions and Dismissal of Appeals
Outcome
Application for certificate under section 32 dismissed; prior appeals against conviction had been dismissed.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Proprietary Rights, Secret Profits by Employees, Certificate Under Court of Final Appeal Ordinance S.32
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Fraud Commercial Law Procedural Law Conspiracy to Defraud Proprietary Rights Secret Profits by Employees Certificate Under Court of Final Appeal Ordinance S.32

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

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

LAM HONG

1st Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (conspiracy to Defraud) / Application for Certificate Under Section 32 of Court of Final Appeal Ordinance After Convictions and Dismissal of Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conspiracy to defraud requires prejudice to an existing proprietary right or includes rights that would have existed but for the fraud
  2. 2 Whether risk of prejudice is sufficient without proof of actual prejudice
  3. 3 Whether a point of law of great and general importance arises for certification under s.32 CFAO

Ratio Decidendi

Conspiracy to defraud encompasses dishonest schemes that risk prejudicing rights which would have existed but for the fraud; there is no meaningful legal distinction between present proprietary rights and contingent rights which would have arisen absent the fraud; therefore no novel point of law of great and general importance was shown and the application for a certificate under s.32 is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for certificate under section 32 dismissed; prior appeals against conviction had been dismissed.

Orders

  • Application for certificate dismissed
  • No certificate under section 32 issued