Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dealing with proceeds of crime

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2024

HKSAR v. CHEAH HANSON

Citation

[2024] HKCA 825
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC134/2019

The Court refused leave because the complaint of counsel's failure to cross-examine was raised out of time and, substantively, the decision not to cross-examine was a reasonable, explained tactical choice consented to by the applicant; there was no arguable case of flagrant incompetence and the convictions were supported by overwhelming evidence, so the appellate court will not interfere with counsel's tactical discretion.
15 Mar 2024

香港特別行政區訴殷國強及另二人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 652
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC583/2023

The court found sufficient factual and evidential connection between DCCC 582, 584 and 585 (shared alleged agreements, common subcontractor Kar Lok Engineering and overlapping prosecution witnesses including identical alleged payments of HK$800,000 and HK$100,000) to justify consolidation under r7 and s18(1); DCCC 583 lacked sufficient connection in persons, agreements, time, subcontractors and modus operandi and consolidation would cause disproportionate prejudice to its defendants, so it must be tried separately under s23(3).
15 Mar 2024

香港特別行政區訴李永輝

Citation

[2024] HKDC 652
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC585/2023

The court granted consolidation of DCCC 582, 584 and 585 because those files share sufficient factual and evidential nexus (including identical charges between 582(1) and 584(1), identical charges between 584(4) and 585(4), substantial overlap through the subcontractor 卡樂工程有限公司 and numerous common prosecution witnesses) so joinder would avoid duplication without prejudicing fairness; DCCC 583 lacks sufficient connection to the other three files (different project, contractors, persons, time periods and methods) and consolidation would unfairly prejudice 583's defendants, therefore 583 must be…
15 Mar 2024

香港特別行政區訴李永輝及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 652
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC582/2023

法院批准將DCCC 582/2023、DCCC 584/2023及DCCC 585/2023合併，理由是三案在事實、相關被告、共同控方證人及均涉及同一分判商（卡樂工程有限公司）上具實質聯繫，可避免重複證供且不構成對被告不公平；同時拒絕將DCCC 583/2023與其他三案合併，因583案在人物、協議、時段、項目類別、分判商及犯罪手法上與其他三案缺乏足夠聯繫，合併會對該案被告造成不當負擔及不利於公平審訊。
25 Jun 2021

HKSAR v. LIU CHI LING

Citation

[2021] HKDC 798
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC351/2020

D3's application for costs is denied because, notwithstanding findings that she was credulous and unsophisticated, her repeated failure to verify account activity and her acquiescence to D1's instructions materially misled the prosecution and therefore disentitles her to costs.
28 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. CHEAH HANSON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 603
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC134/2019

The judge's detailed factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by the evidence (flow of funds, false documents, emails and admissions); the appellants' grounds merely reargued denied contentions without establishing legal error or perversity in the trial judge's reasoning, so leave to appeal was refused and convictions and sentences stand.
17 Jul 2020

HKSAR v. CHAN PAU CHI

Citation

[2020] HKCA 496
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC228/2019

Leave to appeal was granted to D1 solely to the extent of joining and arguing the constitutional challenge to section 137(1) of the Crimes Ordinance (Charge 2); all other grounds of appeal against conviction and all grounds of appeal against sentence for D1 were refused; D2 was refused leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. The judge's factual findings were held to be supported by the evidence and sentencing decisions were within judicial discretion.
15 Mar 2019

HKSAR v. YIK SIU HUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCA 337
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC176/2015

Taken at its highest the prosecution evidence permitted compelling inferences that the applicant was complicit in the agreement to make false representations and dealt with proceeds of the offence; a jury properly directed could convict, so the judge was correct to refuse no‑case submissions; renewal of an unarguable leave application after considered refusal justified a 2‑month loss‑of‑time order under s83W(1) CPO.
29 Jun 2018

HKSAR v. SUM HO WAH HOWARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1793
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA187/2017

The court treated knowledge as not proved but found that the magistrate was entitled to conclude that the appellant at least had reasonable grounds to believe the sums were proceeds of an indictable offence; accordingly the convictions were upheld and the certificate was refused.
31 Jan 2018

HKSAR v. WONG YAT MAN, SUNNY

Citation

[2018] HKCA 35
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC16/2016

The Court held that, considering the timing, the sham nature and gross overvaluation of the jade transaction, the acquisition and deregistration of Bright Jade, the applicant's conduct and failure to explain the transactions, the only irresistible inference was that the applicant knowingly conspired to defraud Maryo and knowingly dealt with the proceeds; convictions on both charges are safe and the out‑of‑time renewed application for leave to appeal is dismissed.