14 Mar 2007
SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. ZOU YISHANG
- Citation
- SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. ZOU YISHANG
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA859/2005
Magistrate was entitled to accept or reject conflicting expert evidence; admission of a prosecution-employed expert did not create a real possibility of bias; the Nedrick/Woollin virtual certainty evidential test applies to offences of specific intent generally and, applied on the facts, supported a finding that the appellant intended or foresaw as virtually certain the creation of a false appearance; the conviction, four-month custodial sentence and SFC investigation costs order were lawful and not excessive.