THE QUEEN v. TSANG TING-BUN

THE QUEEN v. TSANG TING-BUN

The court held that it has jurisdiction to try a Crown servant alleged to have been in control of pecuniary resources disproportionate to official emoluments irrespective of the accused's physical location on the relevant date, and that the evidence then before the court established a prima facie case requiring the accused to answer; further, "disproportionate to" is not to be construed as strictly meaning "in excess of" total official emoluments and the court will not depart from established practice by ruling separately on each particularized item.

Citation
THE QUEEN v. TSANG TING-BUN
Parties
Prosecution: The Queen; Accused: TSANG Ting-bun
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 January 1978
Case Number
DCCC220/1977
Procedural Posture
Criminal Prevention of Bribery / Ruling on No Case to Answer (pre Trial)
Outcome
Court holds it has jurisdiction and that the accused has a case to answer; trial to proceed.
Legal Topics
Prevention of Bribery, No Case Submission, Jurisdictional Competence, Statutory Interpretation of "disproportionate To"
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Anti Corruption Law Jurisdiction Prevention of Bribery No Case Submission Jurisdictional Competence Statutory Interpretation of "disproportionate To"

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

Parties

The Queen

Prosecution

TSANG Ting-bun

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal Prevention of Bribery / Ruling on No Case to Answer (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Crown has established a prima facie case that the accused was in control of pecuniary resources or property on the relevant date
  2. 2 Whether the Court of Hong Kong has jurisdiction to try alleged control of assets vested while the accused was outside the jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the statutory phrase "disproportionate to" in s.10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance requires the assets to be strictly in excess of total official emoluments

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it has jurisdiction to try a Crown servant alleged to have been in control of pecuniary resources disproportionate to official emoluments irrespective of the accused's physical location on the relevant date, and that the evidence then before the court established a prima facie case requiring the accused to answer; further, "disproportionate to" is not to be construed as strictly meaning "in excess of" total official emoluments and the court will not depart from established practice by ruling separately on each particularized item.

Court Disposition

Court holds it has jurisdiction and that the accused has a case to answer; trial to proceed.

Orders

  • Court rules it has jurisdiction to try the charge despite the accused not being in Hong Kong on the relevant date.
  • Court rules the accused has a case to answer on the charge under s.10(1)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance.