Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

False instrument

Legal area

Court

23 Oct 2024

香港特別行政區訴王群另（前稱王琨玲）

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3445
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA114/2024

The trial judge, accepted by the appellate bench on re‑hearing, correctly found that the appellant knowingly created and submitted false sick notes, knew such submission would lead to payment of a disease allowance, received and retained that payment until investigation, and therefore had the requisite intention to defraud the employer; credibility findings and exclusion of unrelated evidence were unobjectionable and conviction and sentence are affirmed.
22 Jun 2022

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM CHING

Citation

[2022] HKCFA 13
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC10/2021

The Court preferred the automendacity construction of "false instrument" — an instrument that lies about itself (circumstances of its making or alteration) — quashed the appellant's conviction because that construction applied; on costs, because the appellant's conduct plainly invited suspicion and the intermediate courts and parties had proceeded on a different (wider) construction, the Court limited costs to the conceded costs of the substantive final appeal and refused costs for the trial, the Court of Appeal and the leave application, and refused a certificate for three counsel.
14 Apr 2022

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM CHING (陳鑑清)

Citation

[2022] HKCFA 7
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC10/2021

CO s69(a)(vii) must be construed ejusdem generis with the other heads of falsity in s69(a): a 'false instrument' requires that the instrument on its face misrepresents the circumstances of its own making or alteration (automendacity); lies about underlying transactions are extraneous and do not satisfy s69(a)(vii). Therefore the appellant's convictions under CO ss73 and 74, based on alleged falsity about the underlying transaction and payment, were unsafe and are quashed; substitution is inappropriate because the charges do not amount to or include the alternative offences and statutory subst…
13 Dec 2021

HKSAR v. CHAN KAM CHING (陳鑑清)

Citation

[2021] HKCFA 43
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC7/2021

Leave to appeal was granted confined to the single question of law: the correct construction of "false instrument" for the purposes of section 69(a)(vii) of the Crimes Ordinance, because the point raises an issue of great and general importance that merits determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
18 Oct 2017

HKSAR v. SALMAN SHAH

Citation

HKSAR v. SALMAN SHAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA86/2017

All relevant pre-sentence custody as defined by s67A CPO must be credited against the total effective sentence, without double counting; where offences are concurrent or overlapping deductions are applied to the longest or last expiring sentence and calculated as a whole. Applying those principles the magistrate properly credited 40 days against the 22 month TMCC 2032 sentence, took STCC 5298 into account by reducing the consecutive element, and therefore the appeal against sentence must be dismissed.
9 Mar 2015

HKSAR v. WOO MEI BO, MABLE

Citation

HKSAR v. WOO MEI BO, MABLE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC274/2014

The Court dismissed leave to appeal because the trial judge was entitled to accept PW1's evidence that the applicant handed Exhibits P1 and P3 to him, the presence of Exhibit P16 in the applicant's bedroom and the manifest inconsistency between that document and the true account balance justified an inference she possessed and knew it was false, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the loss, benefit to the applicant, premeditation and her prior convictions.
8 Feb 2013

HKSAR v. SHERWOOD KWOK

Citation

HKSAR v. SHERWOOD KWOK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA727/2012

Court held offences were premeditated breach of trust by an employee over eight months and custodial sentence was inevitable, but degree of trust was relatively low and prompt full restitution together with guilty plea warranted a substantial (about 50%) reduction from a 6 month starting point, resulting in an appropriate concurrent sentence of 3 months imprisonment.
29 May 2009

HKSAR v. HO WING YUE

Citation

HKSAR v. HO WING YUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA979/2008

The combined evidence (access to refusal records, link to the return address through PW2, mail forwarding in a surname used by the appellant, and the appellant's fingerprint on one letter) made it the only reasonable inference that the appellant prepared and sent the complaint letters; the signatures were forged so the letters were false instruments under s69(a)(i), and the required double intention under s73 was proved, therefore the convictions were safe.
13 Sept 2007

HKSAR v. HO KWOK WA

Citation

HKSAR v. HO KWOK WA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA211/2007

The appeal was allowed and convictions quashed because the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew or believed the documents to be false and had the requisite double intention; there were real doubts about whether wages had been unpaid when P1 was submitted and whether payments to the appellant depended on the verification forms, and the magistrate erred by conflating evidence for both charges and over‑relying on P2 conduct.
6 Sept 2000

HKSAR v. DONG XIAO MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. DONG XIAO MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC150/1999

The court refused the 2nd Defendant's application for an appeal aid certificate because the proposed grounds were not sufficiently arguable: the judge's emphasis was on the quality rather than the number of experts and the handwriting expert's conclusions and the judge's acceptance would not likely have been different if four control signatures were excluded.