SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHAN CHUN WAI

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHAN CHUN WAI

Given that the 2nd defendant was the sole director and shareholder, the only contact with the website service provider and the recipient of access credentials, the court held that the irresistible inference from the circumstantial evidence was that he issued the advertisement and aided the 1st defendant to hold...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHAN CHUN WAI
Parties
Respondent: Securities and Futures Commission; Appellant / 2nd Defendant: Chan Chun Wai; 1st Defendant: Billion Global Asset Management Limited (BGAM Limited)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
14 March 2012
Case Number
HCMA675/2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal (magistracy) / Appeal Against Conviction (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.
Legal Topics
Unlicensed Regulated Activity, Aiding and Abetting, Circumstantial Evidence, Advertisement of Financial Services
Source Language
en
Securities Regulation Criminal Law Regulatory Enforcement Unlicensed Regulated Activity Aiding and Abetting Circumstantial Evidence Advertisement of Financial Services

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Securities and Futures Commission

Respondent

Chan Chun Wai

Appellant / 2nd Defendant

Billion Global Asset Management Limited (BGAM Limited)

1st Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal (magistracy) / Appeal Against Conviction (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd defendant aided and abetted the 1st defendant in carrying on a regulated activity without a licence
  2. 2 Whether the advertisement (P16) was issued by the 2nd defendant or with his knowledge
  3. 3 Whether circumstantial evidence permitted a conviction beyond reasonable doubt despite lack of direct evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Given that the 2nd defendant was the sole director and shareholder, the only contact with the website service provider and the recipient of access credentials, the court held that the irresistible inference from the circumstantial evidence was that he issued the advertisement and aided the 1st defendant to hold itself out as carrying on a regulated activity; absence of direct evidence or explanation did not prevent conviction where the circumstantial case proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; convictions upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Convictions on the summonses affirmed.