Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

False statement by company directors

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2020

香港特別行政區訴曹貴子及另二人

Citation

[2021] HKDC 25
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC678/2019

The court exercised its discretion and awarded defence costs for Count 1 only to the second and third defendants; all other costs applications were refused. The first defendant's public conduct amounted to conduct inviting suspicion, justifying refusal of costs for him; the second and third defendants did not exhibit such conduct in relation to Count 1 and were therefore awarded costs for that count; all three defendants' failure to challenge the 2016 annual report constituted conduct amounting to inviting suspicion and warranted refusal of costs for Count 2.
15 Jul 2011

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2010

The co-conspirators rule was misused at trial because the judge failed to identify which documents he relied on under that rule, rendering the conspiracy trials unfair; the proviso could not be invoked because the convictions were not shown to be inevitable on admissible evidence; accordingly all conspiracy convictions were quashed; Mr Koo's conviction under the false statement provision was also quashed because the Court of Appeal failed to re-evaluate findings in light of the quashed related convictions; and a non-director employee is not criminally obliged to act as a whistle-blower.
15 Jul 2011

HKSAR v. VIVIEN FAN

Citation

HKSAR v. VIVIEN FAN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC8/2010

The co‑conspirators rule was misused at trial because the judge relied on unidentified documents and elevated a witness's opinion of a 'common understanding' into proof of agreement; that misuse rendered the conspiracy trials unfair and the proviso could not be applied to salvage the convictions; consequently all conspiracy convictions were quashed. Donald Koo's remaining false‑statement conviction also had to be quashed because the Court of Appeal failed to review the trial findings in light of quashed related convictions. The court further held that a non‑director employee has no general cr…
15 Jul 2011

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

Citation

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC7/2010

The Court held that the trial judge's failure to identify and explain which documents were admitted and relied upon under the co-conspirators rule constituted a material misuse that rendered the conspiracy trials unfair; the proviso did not apply because the convictions were not shown to be inevitably correct on properly admitted evidence; consequently all conspiracy convictions were quashed. The related conviction for false statement by a director was also quashed because the Court of Appeal failed to re-examine trial findings in light of quashed related convictions and motives.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 曹貴子及另二人

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

HKSAR v. VIVIEN FAN

VIVIEN FAN AND OTHERS v. HKSAR

香港特別行政區訴曹貴子及另二人