Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evasion of liability by deception

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2025

HKSAR v. CHU KA LOK

Citation

[2025] HKCA 951
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC69/2023

The Court found insufficient evidence that the payer intended the payments to be held on trust or that the applicant agreed to such restriction; applying Preddy the increases in the applicant's account balances were choses in action belonging to the applicant; accordingly sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Theft Ordinance did not apply and the prosecution failed to prove that the property belonged to the Company; the convictions were unsafe and were quashed and the sentence set aside.
26 Sept 2025

HKSAR v. KHAN, MOHAMMAD SALEEM

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5550
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA69/2025

On rehearing the court accepted the magistrate's credibility findings and concluded beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew his account was closed and dishonestly issued the cheque to induce the complainant to wait for payment; accordingly the conviction under s18B(1)(b) Theft Ordinance is upheld.
22 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHONG KA HAI, KEEFE AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHONG KA HAI, KEEFE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC411/2012

The appeals were dismissed because the central misrepresentation — that a substantial company existed and would protect capital — was proven false; D1's admissions and the conduct of D1 and D2 established the necessary fraudulent intent (repayments did not negate intent); and the pattern of deposits and rapid withdrawals from D3's account provided reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of an indictable offence, supporting conviction under Cap 455 s25.
13 Dec 2011

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU TAI EDWARD

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN SIU TAI EDWARD
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC78/2011

Given the applicant's central role in establishing and controlling the company and being the sole authorised signatory who signed three large cheques on an account with negligible funds, and having offered no explanation by electing not to testify, the only reasonable and irresistible inference was that he participated in the fraud and knew the cheques would be dishonoured.
21 Jul 2011

ONG SIU SIN KEVIN v. HKSAR

Citation

ONG SIU SIN KEVIN v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC22/2011

Leave to appeal was refused because the contested construction of 'pre-existing legally enforceable liability' raised no point of law of great and general importance (it is a question of law and fact for the trial court), and although the delays were unacceptable, the applicant failed to establish that the delay produced a serious unjust effect or prejudice to the fairness of the trial such that undue delay or substantial and grave injustice could be inferred.
21 Mar 2011

HKSAR v. ONG SIU SIN, KEVIN

Citation

HKSAR v. ONG SIU SIN, KEVIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA734/2009

The court held that 'existing liability' is clear and unambiguous, being defined in the Ordinance as a 'legally enforceable liability'; therefore the issue did not amount to a point of law of great and general importance and the application for a certificate was refused.
10 Mar 2011

HKSAR v. ONG SIU SIN, KEVIN

Citation

HKSAR v. ONG SIU SIN, KEVIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA735/2009

Magistrate's factual findings that each complainant incurred expenditures which the appellant acknowledged and promised to repay, and that the appellant dishonestly induced them to wait for payment by delivering worthless or uncashable cheques, established legally enforceable liabilities and dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt; amendments to charges under s27 were proper and delay in producing statement of findings did not render convictions unsafe; appeals dismissed.
10 Mar 2011

HKSAR v. ONG SIU SIN, KEVIN

Citation

HKSAR v. ONG SIU SIN, KEVIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA733/2009

The magistrate's factual findings that the complainants were credible and that the appellant acknowledged debts by promises and delivery of cheques supported the conclusion that legally enforceable liabilities existed; the magistrate applied the correct criminal standard of proof, properly admitted and evaluated documentary evidence and rightly amended charges under s27 without causing injustice; delay in producing the statement of findings, while regrettable, did not prejudice the appellant sufficiently to warrant quashing convictions or a permanent stay, therefore convictions and sentences…
11 Apr 2008

HKSAR v. HUI SIU

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI SIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC207/2007

Court allowed appeal because on the judge's own findings it was possible the appellant genuinely believed cheques would be honoured; the element of dishonesty required for evasion by deception was not proved to the necessary standard where deception was at best reckless and the judge failed to properly apply both limbs of the Ghosh test; conviction therefore unsafe and quashed.
6 Feb 2004

HKSAR v. WAN CHI PING

Citation

HKSAR v. WAN CHI PING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1158/2003

Appellate court held the Magistrate's questioning was proper clarification, the evidence supported that the appellant procured bank entries under s18D, and there was no legal basis to reduce the sentence for delay; therefore convictions and sentences were upheld.