8 Aug 2025
香港特別行政區 訴 馬碧珊
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 3583
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA423/2023
鑑於控方在審訊前及審訊期間未向辯方披露PW1及PW4所持有且與案有關的WhatsApp截圖及相關材料，該等未披露資料在本案中直接關涉核心爭點（款項用途）及證人可信性，且令本院在重審時無法確定在毫無合理疑點下被告有罪，故上訴成立，撤銷所有定罪並擱置判處。
Hong Kong Case Law
Attempted fraud
25 Oct 2024
香港特別行政區 訴 梁滿祥
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 3256
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA107/2022
The application for a certificate under s32 is dismissed because the issues advanced are predominantly factual credibility and procedural complaints, not legal questions of major and general importance; the applicant failed to demonstrate any reasonably arguable point of law meeting the statutory s32 threshold.
9 May 2024
香港特別行政區 訴 梁滿祥
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 1671
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA107/2022
On rehearing the High Court found the cumulative circumstantial, documentary and electronic evidence established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant made false representations in the online application (including use of his email/phone and company documents), that key supporting documents were fabricated or not genuine, and that the appellant acted dishonestly; accordingly the conviction for attempted fraud was safe and the 9‑month immediate custodial sentence was appropriate and upheld.
9 Feb 2024
香港特別行政區 訴 趙繼業
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 467
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA454/2022
The High Court accepted the trial evidence that the appellant submitted and confirmed two online subsidy applications containing false statements and that his actions (submission and in-person confirmation) exceeded merely preparatory acts, satisfying the elements of attempted fraud under s159G; the judge's interventions were proper and did not prejudice fairness, therefore the convictions were upheld.
8 Feb 2024
香港特別行政區 訴 劉珈葵
- Citation
- [2024] HKCFI 464
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA21/2023
Conviction quashed because the proved facts permitted a reasonable innocent inference (that the appellant, a 15‑year‑old, was an unwitting participant used by the buyer) and the prosecution did not exclude that innocent hypothesis beyond reasonable doubt; trial judge therefore fell into error by treating guilt as the only irresistible inference and by insufficiently assessing the appellant's mixed out‑of‑court statement and good character.
25 Jun 2015
HKSAR v. TANG BIK WAN
- Citation
- HKSAR v. TANG BIK WAN
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC268/2014
The judge's global starting point and resultant aggregate sentence were justified by the seriousness, premeditation, use of forged identity documents, large international transfers of proceeds and syndicated nature of the offending; the applicant's claimed mitigation (age, health, family, alleged assistance) did not materially reduce culpability, and the sentence of 46 months is not manifestly excessive, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
5 Sept 2014
HKSAR v. CHAN HOK NING, RICKY AND ANOTHER
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHAN HOK NING, RICKY AND ANOTHER
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA339/2014
The judge accepted the prosecution witnesses and admissions, found the representation that purchasers were referred by FAPA was false and made with intent to defraud, concluded D2 joined D1 in a joint enterprise, that acts were more than preparatory and that the prosecution proved attempted fraud beyond reasonable doubt, so the convictions were upheld.
30 Aug 2013
香港特別行政區 訴 顧精傑
- Citation
- 香港特別行政區 訴 顧精傑
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA51/2011
The trial adjudicator's acceptance of the complainants' consistent documentary and oral evidence together with expert evidence of an implausible high-frequency trading pattern provided a rational basis to infer the appellant acted without authority to obtain commission; there was no basis for the appellate court to disturb credibility findings or grant further adjournment, so the conviction stands.
29 Mar 2010
HKSAR v. MORI YASUNARI
- Citation
- HKSAR v. MORI YASUNARI
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA894/2009
Presentation of the purported banknote and conduct in persisting to have the bank accept it and open an account, after being informed of verification and account requirements, constituted an act more than merely preparatory and therefore an attempt to commit fraud; the magistrate's adverse credibility findings were properly upheld on appeal.
20 Apr 2004
HKSAR v. NG KIN HA
- Citation
- HKSAR v. NG KIN HA
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA242/2004
The magistrate's acceptance of PW2's account and the appellant's signed declaration provided sufficient evidence to uphold a conviction for attempted fraud under s16A(1)(b); the conviction is therefore affirmed, but the original 4‑month custodial sentence was reduced to 14 weeks to reflect mitigation for good character.