Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud by agent

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2024

香港特別行政區訴周子羨

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1292
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA348/2023

The judge accepted prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence that the appellant personally dealt with clients, provided and retrieved signed application forms, prepared recommendation documents, paid premiums using her account and received commissions shortly after policy approval; these facts justified the only reasonable inference that the appellant knew of and used the false, misleading statements to induce the insurer to issue policies and pay commissions; likewise, representing herself as handling agent without performing agent duties constituted a false representation made with int…
21 Apr 2022

香港特別行政區訴黃冠瑋

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1025
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA281/2021

The conviction was upheld because the trial judge's factual findings that the six receipts were false and that the appellant acted dishonestly with the intention to deceive his employer were supported by the evidence; the prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt and there was no demonstrable error warranting interference on appeal.
24 Aug 2016

RE CARRIBEAN CONNECTION LTD

Citation

RE CARRIBEAN CONNECTION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW106/2015

The petition succeeds because the Bank proved the debt was due on the face of contemporaneous documents and the Company's alleged defence of fraud by its agent is unsupported and would not have put the Bank on notice; discovery was unnecessary; a conditional winding-up order was appropriate.
6 Feb 2015

香港特別行政區訴李錦波

Citation

香港特別行政區訴李錦波
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA612/2013

The convictions were upheld because the evidence established that the appellant, acting as the company's agent, issued company receipts while depositing commission cheques into his personal account and thereby permanently deprived the company of those commissions; his admissions and the documentary and bank evidence negated any credible claim of entitlement or consent, and the commission apportionment entry was found to be misleading.
11 Dec 2007

HKSAR v. CHAN LEUNG YIU, HENRY AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN LEUNG YIU, HENRY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA394/2007

A1: Flourish was the agent of Timegress by conduct on 18 April and owed a duty to disclose a valid higher offer; A1 deliberately and dishonestly concealed Cerie’s higher offer, satisfying the offence under s16A, so conviction is safe. A2: There was insufficient evidence that he was aware that Cerie’s offer remained valid on 18 April; cannot draw irresistible inference of his knowledge or participation, so his conviction is unsafe and is quashed. Sentencing: A1’s custodial sentence of seven months was not manifestly excessive but on exceptional personal circumstances the sentence is suspended…
6 Nov 2006

LIU PETER MAN LOK v. RICOFULL SECURITIES LTD

Citation

LIU PETER MAN LOK v. RICOFULL SECURITIES LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ6703/2002

The court found as fact that Mrs Ho was an employee and had actual and ostensible authority to confirm executions and to receive client monies on behalf of the defendant; therefore the defendant was contractually obliged to account for or deliver the shares, vicariously liable for Mrs Ho's fraudulent representations, liable in negligence for deficient internal controls, and liable in trust to account for the misapplied funds; damages awarded equal the amount paid by the plaintiff, HK$829,260.84.
24 Jan 1969

HO SAU KI t/a WINNIE PLASTIC AND METAL MANUFACTORY v. MORITA AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO SAU KI t/a WINNIE PLASTIC AND METAL MANUFACTORY v. MORITA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA848/1967

The court found on the evidence that the plaintiff did not sign the alleged contracts L1 and L2 but did sign and perform contracts B1 and F1; the defendants’ agent committed fraud in the course of his apparent authority, making the defendants liable; plaintiff entitled to damages of $55,642 and interest at 8% per annum from 2 May 1967.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 周子羨

香港特別行政區 訴 黃冠瑋

RE CARRIBEAN CONNECTION LTD

香港特別行政區 訴 李錦波

HKSAR v. CHAN LEUNG YIU, HENRY AND ANOTHER

LIU PETER MAN LOK v. RICOFULL SECURITIES LTD

HO SAU KI t/a WINNIE PLASTIC AND METAL MANUFACTORY v. MORITA AND ANOTHER

香港特別行政區訴周子羨

香港特別行政區訴黃冠瑋

香港特別行政區訴李錦波