YANG CHIH CHEN v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

YANG CHIH CHEN v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

The SFC's appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate, as tribunal of fact, expressly refrained from finding dishonesty and intention to defraud on grounds of reasonable doubt and the High Court cannot compel a factual finding or direct a conviction on an issue the trial tribunal declined to find; on the costs appeal, although the Magistrate breached natural justice by refusing costs without hearing, the High Court exercised a fresh discretion and concluded the acquitted accused had brought suspicion upon himself and should be deprived of trial costs.

Citation
YANG CHIH CHEN v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Parties
Appellant in No.204; Respondent in No.371: Yang Chih Chen; Respondent in No.204; Appellant in No.371: Securities and Futures Commission
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 August 2005
Case Number
HCMA204/2005
Procedural Posture
Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / High Court (court of First Instance) Judgment on Appeals HCMA 204 & 371/2005
Outcome
HCMA 371/2005 (SFC appeal) dismissed; HCMA 204/2005 (Yang's costs appeal) dismissed; each party to bear own appeal costs unless varied within 21 days
Legal Topics
Mens Rea, Market Manipulation, Appeal by Way of Case Stated, Costs of Litigation, Natural Justice, Standard of Proof
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Securities Regulation Procedural Law Evidence Mens Rea Market Manipulation Appeal by Way of Case Stated Costs of Litigation +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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yang Chih Chen

Appellant in No.204; Respondent in No.371

Securities and Futures Commission

Respondent in No.204; Appellant in No.371

Procedural Posture

Magistracy Appeal (criminal) / High Court (court of First Instance) Judgment on Appeals HCMA 204 & 371/2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether manipulative trading that fixes the calculated opening price (COP) constitutes dishonesty and intention to defraud
  2. 2 Whether prosecution must prove the accused knew or believed the fixed price was artificial and unreasonably high
  3. 3 Whether an appellate court can direct a conviction where the trial tribunal declined to find a crucial fact due to reasonable doubt

Ratio Decidendi

The SFC's appeal was dismissed because the Magistrate, as tribunal of fact, expressly refrained from finding dishonesty and intention to defraud on grounds of reasonable doubt and the High Court cannot compel a factual finding or direct a conviction on an issue the trial tribunal declined to find; on the costs appeal, although the Magistrate breached natural justice by refusing costs without hearing, the High Court exercised a fresh discretion and concluded the acquitted accused had brought suspicion upon himself and should be deprived of trial costs.

Court Disposition

HCMA 371/2005 (SFC appeal) dismissed; HCMA 204/2005 (Yang's costs appeal) dismissed; each party to bear own appeal costs unless varied within 21 days

Orders

  • HCMA 371/2005 dismissed
  • HCMA 204/2005 dismissed; appellant Yang deprived of Magistrate's Court trial costs