Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure of interests

Legal area

Court

14 Jun 2017

HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR also known as HUI SI-YAN RAFAEL

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR also known as HUI SI-YAN RAFAEL
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC12/2016

An agreement made in anticipation of taking public office to accept substantial payments in return for being or remaining favourably disposed to private interests is an agreement to commit misconduct in public office because it corruptly compromises the office-holder's duties; the corrupt inclination purchased is a continuing form of misconduct once office is assumed and it is not necessary to identify a specific future act or omission as quid pro quo.
16 Jan 2012

POLESTAR ASSETS LTD v. NATURAL DAIRY (NZ) HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

POLESTAR ASSETS LTD v. NATURAL DAIRY (NZ) HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1883/2010

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the defendants' evidence and inferences: the court found the Third Party (Cheung Kwan) to be the beneficial owner of the disputed shares, that the 1st and 2nd Sold Notes were signed by Chang in Macau on 2 May 2008, and that the Securities Settlement Instructions were signed by Chow on 4 August 2008; consequently the plaintiff's case was dismissed and costs ordered against the plaintiff.
16 Jan 2012

POLESTAR ASSETS LTD v. ANTON CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

POLESTAR ASSETS LTD v. ANTON CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1836/2009

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred the defendants' account: the Third Party was the beneficial owner of the disputed shares; the Sale and Purchase Agreement and both Sold Notes were signed by Mr Chang in Macau on 2 May 2008; the Securities Settlement Instructions were signed by Chow on 4 August 2008; the plaintiff failed to prove misappropriation or forgery and the claims were therefore dismissed.
24 Mar 2005

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MONG MAN WAI WILLIAM

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MONG MAN WAI WILLIAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1052/2004

The High Court held that the admitted documentary facts and records established that the appellant knew of the share purchase by 27 March 1995 and therefore knew of his deemed interest on 1 June 1995; the conviction was safe and the SFC had jurisdiction to prosecute pre‑SFO offences by virtue of savings and transitional provisions and statutory interpretation; however the sentencing judge failed to give adequate weight to lack of moral culpability and voluntary disclosure such that the fines were set aside and substituted by absolute discharges for both convictions.
2 May 2003

FRIEDMANN PACIFIC GREATER CHINA INVESTMENTS LTD v. PRUDENCE SECURITIES CO LTD

Citation

FRIEDMANN PACIFIC GREATER CHINA INVESTMENTS LTD v. PRUDENCE SECURITIES CO LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1642/2003

The ex parte order was discharged because the investigation began under the repealed SDIO before the SFO commenced and Section 86, Schedule 10 preserves the SDIO regime; the court has no jurisdiction to compel answers under either SDIO or SFO because each is a self-contained code; the notification was invalid for providing an unreasonable time to comply (half a working day) and the ex parte application lacked justification, therefore the order founded on that notification must be discharged.
27 Nov 2002

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHINA UNITED HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHINA UNITED HOLDINGS LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA921/2002

The Court held that by execution of the securities settlement instructions and the transfer through the CCASS system the appellant (through its subsidiary) divested both legal and equitable interests in the 90 million GR shares by 9 March 2001, thereby triggering the five day statutory notification period under s7(1); failure to notify within that period constituted a breach and the convictions were upheld.
15 Nov 1993

in re World Trade Centre Group Limited

Citation

in re World Trade Centre Group Limited
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3870/1993

Where (1) a blocked shareholding is contrary to the public interest, (2) adequate investigative steps to identify the beneficial owners have been taken and further inquiry would be futile, and (3) protective measures are imposed for the blocked shareholders and notice safeguards for payment-out, the Court should order a sale under s.46(4); such a Court-ordered sale vests good title in the purchaser.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. HUI RAFAEL JUNIOR also known as HUI SI-YAN RAFAEL

POLESTAR ASSETS LTD v. NATURAL DAIRY (NZ) HOLDINGS LTD AND ANOTHER

POLESTAR ASSETS LTD v. ANTON CAPITAL LTD AND ANOTHER

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. MONG MAN WAI WILLIAM

FRIEDMANN PACIFIC GREATER CHINA INVESTMENTS LTD v. PRUDENCE SECURITIES CO LTD

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHINA UNITED HOLDINGS LTD

in re World Trade Centre Group Limited