HKSAR v. SUM HO WAH HOWARD

HKSAR v. SUM HO WAH HOWARD

The court treated knowledge as not proved but found that the magistrate was entitled to conclude that the appellant at least had reasonable grounds to believe the sums were proceeds of an indictable offence; accordingly the convictions were upheld and the certificate was refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1793
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Appellant: SUM Ho-wah Howard
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 June 2018
Case Number
HCMA187/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Certificate of Leave to Appeal Under S32(2) Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484 / Decision on Certificate and Appeal From Court of First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Certificate to appeal refused; convictions on charges under section 25 Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455) upheld
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, Dealing With Proceeds of Crime, Mens Rea, Certificate to Appeal
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Appellate Procedure Money Laundering Dealing With Proceeds of Crime Mens Rea Certificate to Appeal

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

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

SUM Ho-wah Howard

1st Appellant

Procedural Posture

Application for Certificate of Leave to Appeal Under S32(2) Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484 / Decision on Certificate and Appeal From Court of First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether convictions under section 25 Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455) can be sustained where the conviction appears to rest on both knowledge and reasonable grounds to believe
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate should have expressly determined which mens rea (knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe) was proved
  3. 3 Whether the evidence permitted an inference of theft as an alternative explanation

Ratio Decidendi

The court treated knowledge as not proved but found that the magistrate was entitled to conclude that the appellant at least had reasonable grounds to believe the sums were proceeds of an indictable offence; accordingly the convictions were upheld and the certificate was refused.

Court Disposition

Certificate to appeal refused; convictions on charges under section 25 Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455) upheld

Orders

  • Certificate under section 32(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) refused
  • Appeal dismissed and convictions affirmed