Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

False or misleading statements

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2024

香港特別行政區訴李承德

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 870
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA137/2023

The court held that the appellant deliberately provided false or misleading information as the purchaser's agent, thereby breaching duties of honesty and causing actual detriment; the sentencing judge did not misapply legal principles or give undue weight to evidence, and immediate imprisonment of two months (concurrent on two counts) was within a proper sentencing range and not manifestly excessive, so the appeal is dismissed.
11 Feb 2021

KOO YEUNG PONG v. CHAN KIM KAM

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 344
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL270/2020

Applying a stringent approach to meaning and materiality, the court found the Petitioner failed to prove the Respondent published materially false or misleading statements for the purpose proscribed by s 26(1). The Respondent provided reasonable grounds and documentary explanations for her figures and classifications and established a bona fide belief in the truth of the statements, or else any inaccuracies were not material to the alleged illegality. The petition therefore failed and must be dismissed.
7 Jun 2012

香港特別行政區訴梁佩珊

Citation

香港特別行政區訴梁佩珊
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA688/2011

The conviction was upheld because the trial judge's credibility findings were supported by evidence (witness testimony, discrepancies in documents such as pen colour and date formats, and the appellant's role as submitter and beneficiary). On the whole evidence the only reasonable inference was that the appellant knew P1 and P2 were not signed or authorized by the named members, so the false ‘authorization’ statements were made knowingly; the verdict was not unsafe.
4 Feb 1997

R. v. CHOI CHI TAK

Citation

R. v. CHOI CHI TAK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1301/1996

Conviction quashed because prosecution failed to adduce evidence that the particulars in Item 7 of the certificate were false or misleading and the essential evidential elements (what was sprayed and the Code of Practice) were not established.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 李承德

KOO YEUNG PONG v. CHAN KIM KAM

香港特別行政區 訴 梁佩珊

R. v. CHOI CHI TAK

香港特別行政區訴李承德

香港特別行政區訴梁佩珊