HKSAR v. LAU KIN YU

HKSAR v. LAU KIN YU

The court found no error in the Magistrate's application of the dishonesty standard and accepted his factual findings that contracts and invoices were false and intended to induce lenders; accordingly convictions were upheld. However, having regard to the extent of actual loss (principally HK$300,000 to IBA),...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
HKSAR v. LAU KIN YU
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; Appellant: LAU KIN YU
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 March 2003
Case Number
HCMA391/2002
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Court of First Instance Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Procuring Making of an Entry by Deception, False Accounting, Dishonesty Test (ghosh), Sentence Reduction and Suspension, Delay in Prosecution, Community Service Orders
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Theft Ordinance (cap.210) Banking and Finance Law Sentencing Law Procuring Making of an Entry by Deception False Accounting Dishonesty Test (ghosh) Sentence Reduction and Suspension +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

LAU KIN YU

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / Court of First Instance Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the learned Magistrate erred in applying the test of dishonesty
  2. 2 Whether Charges (3) and (4) required separate factual treatment
  3. 3 Whether there is a lurking doubt requiring quashing of convictions

Ratio Decidendi

The court found no error in the Magistrate's application of the dishonesty standard and accepted his factual findings that contracts and invoices were false and intended to induce lenders; accordingly convictions were upheld. However, having regard to the extent of actual loss (principally HK$300,000 to IBA), significant unexplained delay, and mitigation of previous good character, the original immediate 18-month sentence was manifestly excessive and was reduced to a single concurrent term of 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 24 months.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Convictions on all counts are upheld.
  • All sentences imposed by the learned Magistrate are quashed and replaced with a single sentence of 12 months' imprisonment for all charges to run concurrently, suspended for 24 months.