Esheria Hong Kong Case Law
Sign in
Hong Kong Source-linked decisions Coverage checked

Hong Kong Case Law

Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.

Courts on this page
3 court collections
Last checked

Search and filter Hong Kong case law

Results update automatically as you type.

Hong Kong decisions

Decisions matching the current search

Clear filters
Criminal law [2026] HKCA 995

香港特別行政區 訴 洪良

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
CACC445/2025

The trial judge correctly assessed credibility and mitigation, concluded remorse was not sufficiently demonstrated beyond what is reflected in guilty-plea credit, and reasonably selected a 4-year baseline for HK$3,000,000 with cross-border aggravation; applying one-third credit and a 20% prosecution uplift to 38 months was within proper sentencing discretion, so leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Source excerpt

  • Money laundering
  • Sentencing guidelines
  • Guilty plea credit
  • Remorse
  • Aggravating factors
  • Cross-border offending
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] HKCA 796

香港特別行政區 訴 譚浩一

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
CACC118/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the sentencing judge correctly applied sentencing principles: the applicant actively participated in serious telephone scams targeting elderly victims and knowingly handled proceeds; the one-third guilty-plea discount already reflected his cooperation and admissions; s.27 Cap.455 aggravation was properly invoked and reasonably modulated to 25%; the aggregate sentence of 56 months was not manifestly excessive and involved no error of principle.

Source excerpt

  • Conspiracy to defraud
  • Handling proceeds of crime
  • Organized and serious crimes ordinance s27 aggravation
  • Guilty plea discount
  • Concurrent vs consecutive sentencing
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] HKCFI 1593

香港特別行政區 訴 劉少蘭

Court
Court of First Instance
Case number
HCMA318/2025

Given the scale (over HK$1.78 million across two accounts), frequency (hundreds of transactions) and duration (one offence over a month, one over a week), the defendant's ownership and use of the accounts, lack of remorse and absence of mitigating factors, the sentencing judge's choice of 15 months for each count and partial concurrency (5 months) producing a total of 20 months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive and was within correct exercise of sentencing discretion.

Source excerpt

  • Money laundering sentencing
  • Sentencing precedents
  • Concurrency vs partial concurrency
  • Appellate review (re-hearing)
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] HKCA 205

香港特別行政區 訴 肖娜容及另二人

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
CACC157/2021

The Court held the trial judge failed to give adequate and properly sequenced directions on the subjective element of 'reasonable grounds to believe', omitted the required step of treating defence assertions that may be 'possible true' as part of the assessment, gave incomplete guidance on the nature of predicate offences (erroneously suggesting extraterritorial conduct was necessarily within Hong Kong law), and gave inadequate directions on conspiracy mens rea; these deficiencies rendered the convictions unsafe. Consequently the convictions and sentences of D3, D4 and D5 were quashed and set…

Source excerpt

  • Money laundering
  • Conspiracy to launder
  • Jury directions
  • Expert evidence
  • Reasonable grounds to believe
  • Extraterritoriality of predicate offences
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] HKDC 130

香港特別行政區 訴 林智曜又名林偉拳

Court
District Court
Case number
DCCC573/2023

The judge exercised discretion to refuse the costs application because the defendant and his legal team engaged in conduct that materially misled the prosecution (withholding that they had contacted a key witness, delaying substantive defences until mid‑trial and using a tactical ambush), causing the prosecution reasonably to overestimate the prospects of conviction; in those circumstances the defendant was not entitled to costs notwithstanding acquittal on counts 1 and 2.

Source excerpt

  • Costs of litigation
  • Right to silence
  • Judicial discretion on costs
  • Prosecution investigation
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] HKCA 208

香港特別行政區 訴 龍子軒及另一人

Court
Court of Appeal
Case number
CACC81/2025

At the preliminary stage the court found the applicants' grounds of appeal raised reasonable disputes (including that they lent accounts to a licensed money changer and only one deposit per account traced to fraud), and applying the established test in Lau Man Kin and Salim Majed the court held that bail pending appeal should be granted in this exceptional case.

Source excerpt

  • Bail pending appeal
  • Conspiracy to launder money
  • Leave to appeal
  • Credibility findings
  • Sentencing
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] HKCFI 414

香港特別行政區 訴 鍾卓嵐

Court
Court of First Instance
Case number
HCMA288/2025

The appeal was dismissed because, on the correct factual chronology, the appellant committed offences during a relevant police bail period such that the trial judge lawfully ordered the sentences to run consecutively with the other money‑laundering sentence; any misstatement of chronology by defence counsel did not render the sentencing decision legally wrong or manifestly excessive.

Source excerpt

  • Handling proceeds of crime
  • Sentencing principles
  • Concurrent and consecutive sentences
  • Reoffending on police bail
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] HKDC 68

香港特別行政區 訴 梁兆邦

Court
District Court
Case number
DCCC313/2025

The court found sufficient common factual origin and links (cohabitation, contemporaneous seizure of cash and valuables, account transfer history and economic disparity) between D1, D3 and D4 to treat their laundering offences as a related series; consolidation was allowed because any potential prejudice to D3 or D4 could be addressed by a professional judge separating consideration of evidence and counts, and severance would cause inefficiency and repetitive evidence without avoiding the evidential nexus.

Source excerpt

  • Joinder of charges
  • Consolidation
  • Prejudice to accused
  • Common factual origin
  • Evidence segregation
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] HKDC 68

香港特別行政區 訴 呂思樺及另三人

Court
District Court
Case number
DCCC312/2025

The court found sufficient common factual origin and linkage among the offences involving D1, D3 and D4—cohabitation, contemporaneous seizure of cash and valuables in the same premises, disproportionality between defendants' declared means and assets and transfers between accounts—such that the laundering charges are sufficiently connected to the fraud and to each other; consolidation therefore granted because it advances judicial economy and the judge can and will consider each charge and each defendant separately without causing unfair prejudice.

Source excerpt

  • Consolidation of charges
  • Joinder of offences
  • Fair trial/prejudice
  • Judicial economy
  • Admissibility/overlap of evidence
Read case analysis
Criminal law [2026] HKCFI 384

香港特別行政區 訴 廖偉華

Court
Court of First Instance
Case number
HCMA342/2025

The court held the sentencing judge did not err in selecting a 15‑month starting point and reducing to 10 months for a guilty plea, but applying the totality principle required that 3 months of that sentence run concurrently with the sentence in DCCC 1314/2023; appeal allowed in part.

Source excerpt

  • Sentence severity
  • Concurrent sentences
  • Totality principle
  • Deterrence
  • Guilty plea discount
Read case analysis

About this LexChat collection

Hong Kong decisions are organised by court, judge, legal area and indexed issue so a practitioner can move from a proposition to a citable authority with the surrounding context intact.

Source links and collection timestamps are retained alongside the indexed records.