Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Dishonesty/ghosh test

  • 17 Jan 2022

    香港特別行政區 訴 王艷琪

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 23
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA289/2020

    The trial judge’s credibility findings—based on CCTV, the store security witness and inconsistencies in the appellant’s accounts—were upheld. The judge properly excluded reliance on the caution admission for the core dishonesty finding, instead concluding from the totality of the evidence that the appellant deliberately concealed goods and left without payment, proving dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive beyond reasonable doubt; there was no material legal error to overturn the conviction.

  • 8 Dec 2005

    HKSAR v. MO YUK PING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HKSAR v. MO YUK PING AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCC1360/2004

    On the evidence as a whole the court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that there were distinct dishonest agreements: (a) between June 1, 2002 and May 31, 2003 to create a false or misleading appearance of active trading in Shanghai Land shares (conspiracy to defraud) involving PW1, the First and Second Accused and others, proven by trading records, account openings, bank transfers and expert analysis; and (b) from April–May 2003 to procure false representations to the SFC and to coach account-holders (statutory conspiracies to pervert the course of public justice), to which the Second an…

  • 11 Jun 2003

    HKSAR v. TAM SZE YAN CYNTHIA

    Citation
    HKSAR v. TAM SZE YAN CYNTHIA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1003/2002

    The magistrate's findings were upheld: the appellant deliberately omitted material liabilities and her resignation to induce loan approvals, conduct that was dishonest under the Ghosh framework and which created a substantial risk of prejudice; the representations were properly treated as continuing and there was no requirement to amend the charges; credibility findings were within the magistrate's purview; although the magistrate's sequencing on starting point and mitigation was flawed, the sentences of six months on each count (partially consecutive, total nine months) were not manifestly e…