Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conspiracy to obtain property by deception

Legal area

Court

21 May 2019

HKSAR v. EUGENE WILLIAMS

Citation

[2019] HKCA 559
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC230/2018

The Court found the judge's starting point appropriate given the sophistication, duration and joint enterprise nature of the fraud; the applicant's role was not materially lesser than coconspirators; a 20% discount for a plea entered only on the first day of trial was correct; the mobile phone was properly forfeited as an instrument used in the offence; accordingly leave was refused, the appeal dismissed and an 8‑week loss of time direction under s83W(1) CPO was made.
4 Jan 2019

HKSAR v. EUGENE WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 39
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC230/2018

The Court of Appeal found no error in the trial judge's assessment of starting points, application of plea discounts, or the adjustment for totality; the sentences were within reasonable range given the applicants' prominent roles in an elaborate internet grooming fraud and antecedents, and the forfeiture order for the mobile telephone was properly supported by its connection to the offence; consequently leave to appeal against sentence was refused.
9 Jun 2011

HKSAR v. LUO XIUHONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LUO XIUHONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC339/2010

The court held that the international/cross-border element did not justify enhancing the usual starting point from 3 years to 4 years in this case; the proper starting point for the conspiracy charge was 3 years after trial and, allowing full credit for the plea, an appropriate sentence was 2 years 4 months imprisonment on the 1st charge. The order that 4 months of the 2nd charge be served consecutively was left undisturbed.
18 Jan 2008

HKSAR v. WONG SIU KAY AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG SIU KAY AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC265/2006

Given the agreed facts, contemporaneous use of forged cards in defendants' names, D1's attendance and conduct at the shop after a phone call from Hui, the proximity in time and place of the defendants when cards were used and arrests, and the absence of evidence from the defendants to rebut those inferences, the judge was justified in drawing the inferences necessary to convict D1 and D4 of conspiracy; likewise the judge's adoption of a 3.5 year starting point for conspiracy offences and the sentencing disposals were within proper discretionary range and not manifestly excessive.
20 Feb 2006

HKSAR v. ZHANG CHANG CHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHANG CHANG CHUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1151/2005

Because the evidence against the accused was by way of dock identification in circumstances where an identification parade could and should have been held, the identification evidence was unsafe; the applicant's earlier abandonment was treated as a nullity given his lack of awareness that the appeal would inevitably succeed, and therefore the conviction and sentence were quashed and the confiscation order set aside with return of property.
29 Aug 1997

HKSAR v. KONG KIN SANG and Another

Citation

HKSAR v. KONG KIN SANG and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC407/1996

Convictions were quashed because the absence of a ruling on the admissibility of the oral statement given the possibility of ICAC inducement, together with the ambiguous and inconclusive content of the verbal, left reasonable doubt as to the safety of the verdicts and the sufficiency of proof of knowledge required for the deception conspiracy.
27 Nov 1991

THE QUEEN v. YAU KOON YAU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YAU KOON YAU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC389/1991

Although the trial judge erred in not addressing handwriting expertise on the cheque signatures, the conviction was inevitable because agreed facts (lease, business registration, bank account) together with the defendant's disappearance and rejected explanations established guilt; therefore leave to appeal against conviction was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. EUGENE WILLIAMS

HKSAR v. EUGENE WILLIAMS AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. LUO XIUHONG

HKSAR v. WONG SIU KAY AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. ZHANG CHANG CHUN

HKSAR v. KONG KIN SANG and Another

THE QUEEN v. YAU KOON YAU