2 Jan 2024
The application is dismissed because it impermissibly seeks to re‑open a point already decided; the court found no ambiguity in the prior Ruling and held Count 1 alleges a single continuing conspiracy so the six‑month limitation under ss 11 and 159D runs from cessation of the conspiracy; the application therefore lacks merit and is an abuse of process.
8 Oct 2019
The appeal is dismissed: the magistrate did not exhibit disqualifying bias; the acts of removing and relocating the government water meter without written permission constituted 'interference' under s31; the offence is continuing so the summonses were not time‑barred; the statutory wording imports a volitional element and the prosecution proved the requisite mental element; the common law defence of honest and reasonable belief did not negate conviction on the facts.
23 Sept 2016
The Court dismissed the appeal: (1) under the reasonable grounds limb of s25(1) the prosecution need not prove the accused knew the specific underlying conduct that produced the property nor its criminal character; s25(4) does not add mens rea requirements; (2) aggregation of multiple dealings into charges was permissible on the facts given common purpose of concealment and absence of a timely duplicity objection; (3) the trial judge properly rejected appellant's gatekeeping evidence and made sufficient factual findings to conclude there were reasonable grounds to believe the monies were proc…
5 Jul 2016
The Court held that, in the context of s.104A Cap.132, 'displaying' requires some act or conduct directly concerned with the physical set up or putting up of the bill or poster; conduct consisting only of promoting the advertiser's business in proximity to already-displayed posters does not satisfy the element of 'displaying'.
19 Aug 2015
Leave to appeal was granted because the court found the four posed questions are of great and general importance and require authoritative determination: (1) the application of the rule against duplicity and its exceptions to s.25 OSCO and whether money laundering can be a continuing offence, (2) the proper formulation for assessing 'reasonable grounds' and reconciliation of Seng Yuet Fong with Pang Hung Fai, (3) whether the prosecution must prove the proceeds were proceeds of an indictable offence, and (4) the extent of a trial judge's obligation to make positive findings about mens rea when…
14 Aug 2015
The Court granted leave to appeal under s.32(2) Cap 484 because the questions raised are of great and general importance requiring appellate determination, notably on how duplicity and continuing-offence doctrines apply to s.25 OSCO and on the correct legal tests for the mens rea element of money laundering offences; the order to grant leave is dispositive of the application for leave.
14 Aug 2015
Leave to appeal was granted by the Court of Final Appeal under s.32(2) Cap 484 because the questions raised were matters of great and general importance requiring authoritative determination; the Court scheduled the substantive appeals for hearing and admitted the appellant (Mr Yeung) to bail pending the appeals.
1 Jun 2015
The Court refused to certify the questions for the Court of Final Appeal: respondent's question was declined because certification would be contingent on an application for leave to appeal which had not been made and the respondent was not seeking leave; appellant's first question was declined because this Court is bound by the Court of Final Appeal's decision in Oei Hengky Wiryo; appellant's second question was declined because the trial judge was entitled to disbelieve the appellant, treat transactions as unexplained and nonetheless conclude the appellant had reasonable grounds to believe t…
8 May 2015
The prohibition on employment imposed under section 11(2) IO and Regulation 2 of the IR is independent of any limit of stay and remains enforceable after the original permitted period; a person released on Form 8 remains an overstayer for the purposes of liability; the magistrate was entitled to convict on the totality of circumstantial evidence and the appeals against conviction are dismissed.
10 Feb 2015
Leave to appeal was granted because the Court of Appeal certified questions of law of great and general importance concerning the application of the rule against duplicity to s25 money‑laundering offences, whether such offences can be continuing offences, and the applicability of established duplicity exceptions to charges alleging multiple dealings; the appeal was listed for hearing on 9 June 2015.