Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 何小華

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA179/2025

The trial judge's adverse credibility findings and conclusions that the appellant had accepted and retained payments and issued a bounced cheque were open on the evidence and supported a finding of dishonesty; the written admissions were valid, the trial court properly explained them, the appellant's failure to deploy alleged WhatsApp evidence or call witnesses was not attributable to judicial failings, and the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt, therefore the conviction must stand.

Source excerpt

• Deception to evade legal liability
• Admission of facts
• Credibility assessment
• Duty to unrepresented litigant
• Appeal by way of rehearing

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. TAN MEIYUAN AND OTHERS

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC360/2008

Court of Appeal held the sentencing judge’s 50% global enhancement method was inappropriate and substituted structured sentences with clear concurrent and consecutive terms.

• Sentencing starting point
• Enhancement under s.27 cap.455
• Guilty plea discount
• Totality principle
• Concurrent and consecutive sentencing
• Leave to appeal out of time

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. SHIH TIAN LIANG

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA16/2008

The Court of First Instance allowed a magistracy appeal against sentence, substituting 150 hours’ community service for four months’ imprisonment for use of a false instrument.

• Use of false instrument under section 74 crimes ordinance
• Appropriate sentencing options for dishonesty offences
• Mitigation by good character and age
• Suspended sentence versus community service
• Sentencing
• False-instrument

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. LEE SHING HUNG

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA438/2007

The Court of First Instance dismissed a criminal appeal against convictions over HFA overpayments, holding the magistrate’s credibility findings and inferences were open on the evidence.

• Theft
• Procuring entry by deception
• Home financing allowance scheme
• Dishonesty (ghosh test)
• Criminal-appeal
• Dishonesty

Read case analysis

GE MONEY BANK v. LI CHOW CHIN

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCA827/2006

The court refused judgment and granted unconditional leave to defend, holding the defendant’s change of position defence was not incredible or bound to fail.

• Change of position defence
• Leave to defend
• Deception leading to remittances
• Costs directions
• Change-of-position-defence
• Leave-to-defend

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. CHAN TSZ TAK

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC121/2002

The Court of Appeal dismissed a sentence appeal, holding that the District Court’s concurrent prison terms for multiple deception offences were not manifestly excessive.

• Obtaining property by deception
• Evading liability by deception
• Plea discount
• Totality principle
• Concurrent sentences
• Manifestly excessive sentence

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. GOH SWEE YAN ANGELINA

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC491/1999

The Court of Appeal held that substituting the conviction did not change the proper sentence. Two years’ imprisonment was upheld and the sentence appeal dismissed.

• Evading liability by deception
• Procurement of bank record entry by deception
• Theft
• Breach of trust
• Leave to appeal against sentence
• Criminal-sentencing

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. WONG SUN SANG

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA189/1999

Appeal against conviction for procuring a bank entry by deception under s.18D of the Theft Ordinance. The High Court upheld the Magistrate's findings and dismissed the appeal.

• Procuring entry in bank record by deception
• Mens rea
• Dishonesty
• Evidential sufficiency and circumstantial evidence
• Credibility findings
• Safety of conviction on appeal

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. MENG Wei

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC465/1997

The Court of Appeal granted leave and reduced a criminal sentence by one month to avoid disproportionate collateral immigration consequences for the appellant.

• Theft by finding
• Obtaining by deception
• Assault occasioning actual bodily harm
• Totality principle in sentencing
• Collateral immigration consequences
• Sentencing

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. LAU SAU WAN

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC106/1997

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against sentence for two charges of evasion of liability by deception, holding the 2-year concurrent sentence was not excessive.

• Evasion of liability by deception
• Sentencing principles
• Totality principle
• Concurrent versus consecutive sentences
• Sentencing
• Fraud-deception

Read case analysis