Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Falsification of records

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2013

HKSAR v. HO HUNG KWAN MICHAEL

Citation

HKSAR v. HO HUNG KWAN MICHAEL
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC9/2012

Omission to state that patients did not personally attend did not amount to falsification of records in the ordinary sense; there was no rule requiring in-clinic diagnosis or recording of attendance; no proof that public resources were deprived or that the integrity of the system was so seriously damaged as to meet the high threshold for criminalising conduct by a public officer; conviction for misconduct in public office therefore unsustainable and quashed.
20 Jun 2001

HKSAR v. MOK CHUNG SUM

Citation

HKSAR v. MOK CHUNG SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1211/2000

The convictions were upheld because the documentary evidence (significant discrepancies between Exh P17 and Exh P18) together with witness identification of the appellant's signatures and the absence of any explanation from the appellant established beyond reasonable doubt that he falsified records and dishonestly appropriated the understated receipts; acquittals on other charges were proper where the evidence implicated another supervisor (PW15) and created reasonable doubt.
20 Nov 1997

HKSAR v. FU YUEN KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. FU YUEN KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC200/1997

The convictions were quashed because, viewed cumulatively, the evidence was unsatisfactory: the trial judge's rejection of the applicant's testimony did not cure gaps created by the absence of available director rebuttal evidence and by indicia of company acquiescence and irregular accounting practices, so the prosecution had not proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt and the convictions were unsafe.
1 Sept 1975

LAI SIK-PUI AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LAI SIK-PUI AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC211/1975

The appeal was dismissed because the trial judge's finding that the occurrence book entry derived from the inquiry file was supported by contemporaneous wording, handwriting and timing, establishing that appellants knew of the second vehicle and therefore colluded to falsify the case diary; that proof met the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. HO HUNG KWAN MICHAEL

HKSAR v. MOK CHUNG SUM

HKSAR v. FU YUEN KEUNG

LAI SIK-PUI AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN