Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud by deception

Legal area

Court

23 Aug 2024

香港特別行政區訴蟻樂祺

Citation

[2024] HKCA 702
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC152/2022

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellate court concluded the trial judge's findings on credibility and chronology were supportable by the evidence, the judge properly found the applicant breached his duties as an agent by concealing ownership/`摸貨` to obtain secret profits, and the sentences imposed were within the appropriate range with proper mitigation applied; there was no arguable basis to overturn conviction or sentence.
8 Jun 2022

香港特別行政區訴黃琪昌

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1369
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA524/2021

The trial judge correctly accepted the victims' credible evidence that the appellant's false claim of it being his birthday was an inducement to their gifts; that finding was not illogical or impossible and accordingly the convictions are upheld and the appeal dismissed.
25 Nov 2020

香港特別行政區訴甘偉興

Citation

[2020] HKCA 968
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC178/2018

The Court upheld the trial judge's credibility assessments and factual findings, found the seized documents and fingerprints admissible and probative, concluded there was no legal or factual error rendering the convictions unsafe, and held the 5-year total sentence was within applicable sentencing principles and not manifestly excessive.
5 May 2020

香港特別行政區訴甘偉興

Citation

[2020] HKCA 301
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC178/2018

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the appellate court found no error of law or principle in the trial judge's assessment: the trial judge did not rely solely on P11(1)-(5), properly evaluated PW1's credibility and the implausibility of the defence, and the aggregate five‑year sentence (with partial concurrency) was not manifestly excessive.
13 Apr 2018

香港特別行政區訴劉承聰

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 751
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA278/2017

The appeal succeeds because the circumstantial evidence did not exclude reasonable doubt as to the appellant’s dishonest intent; the trial judge’s adverse credibility inference was not the only rational conclusion from the evidence and the conviction was therefore unsafe and quashed.
20 Sept 2011

HKSAR v. YIP SIU KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP SIU KEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA475/2011

Given the application form expressly required disclosure of all outstanding liabilities, the deliberate omission of over HK$548,000 (while declaring only HK$5,068) supported the magistrate's finding that the omission was material and that the appellant intentionally sought to deceive; the magistrate's inference of intent was reasonable and the appeal fails.
11 Jun 2003

HKSAR v. TAM SZE YAN CYNTHIA

Citation

HKSAR v. TAM SZE YAN CYNTHIA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1003/2002

The magistrate's findings were upheld: the appellant deliberately omitted material liabilities and her resignation to induce loan approvals, conduct that was dishonest under the Ghosh framework and which created a substantial risk of prejudice; the representations were properly treated as continuing and there was no requirement to amend the charges; credibility findings were within the magistrate's purview; although the magistrate's sequencing on starting point and mitigation was flawed, the sentences of six months on each count (partially consecutive, total nine months) were not manifestly e…

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 蟻樂祺

香港特別行政區 訴 黃琪昌

香港特別行政區 訴 甘偉興

香港特別行政區 訴 甘偉興

香港特別行政區 訴 劉承聰

HKSAR v. YIP SIU KEUNG

HKSAR v. TAM SZE YAN CYNTHIA

香港特別行政區訴蟻樂祺

香港特別行政區訴黃琪昌

香港特別行政區訴甘偉興

香港特別行政區訴甘偉興

香港特別行政區訴劉承聰