Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Letter of credit fraud

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2009

HKSAR v. HO WING CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. HO WING CHEONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC283/2007

D1: leave to appeal against sentence dismissed; trial judge did not err in imposing a partly consecutive one-year term for the L/C fraud and properly exercised discretion in allowing a 6-month reduction for delay and trial conduct. D2: leave to appeal conviction dismissed—whitened cheque-stubs development was not a material irregularity or insufficient evidence basis for conviction reversal; leave to appeal sentence granted and on appeal the trial sentence on Count 2 was excessive given his lesser role, late involvement and lack of personal benefit — original 8-year sentence on Count 2 set as…
13 Aug 2009

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (CHINA) LTD v. GUANGZHOU DEXING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

UNITED OVERSEAS BANK (CHINA) LTD v. GUANGZHOU DEXING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL10/2009

The Mareva injunction was not discharged because the omissions in the ex parte affidavit were not sufficiently material to vitiate the grant and because there was a strong arguable case of fraud which justified an inference of real risk of dissipation; the court accordingly exercised its discretion to maintain freezing relief but varied the restrained sum to US$1.5 million.
30 Jan 2008

HKSAR v. CHU WAI SAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHU WAI SAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC311/2006

The Court quashed the 2nd defendant's convictions because the record of pre-trial interviews, properly read in context, did not establish the requisite degree of guilty knowledge (wilful blindness or specific intent) for accessorial liability founded on omission; however the Court upheld the 5th defendant's conviction and both principal defendants' sentences because the evidence showed the 5th defendant was the primary author of a planned scheme submitting false documentary credits that exposed the bank to substantial risk, and a 5-year starting point was appropriate given seriousness and mon…
26 Jan 2006

HKSAR v. CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KAR LEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC287/2004

Leave to appeal against conviction was granted but appeals on conviction were dismissed: the judge did not err materially in directions about Shanghai Tongji, joint enterprise, duplicity or materiality given the evidential matrix; board-of-directors analogy was inappropriate but overall directions avoided risk of jurors subordinating honest views; sentencing was appropriate for D1 but reduced for D2 and D3 to reflect lesser culpability and delay.
16 Aug 2005

HKSAR v. CHOI SUM TONG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOI SUM TONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC11/2005

Application dismissed because no unjustifiable disparity existed once all relevant facts (including prior sentences of co-defendants on related matters and differing temporal exposure) were considered; the 4-year starting point was appropriate and mitigation for delay and character had been properly applied.
18 Jul 2005

HKSAR v. LEE KWOK YUN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE KWOK YUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC117/2004

Leave to appeal was refused because no material trial irregularity or miscarriage of justice was demonstrated, the judge's summing up adequately presented the defence, and the imposed sentences were not manifestly excessive having regard to the enormous sums involved, the prolonged and systematic nature of the frauds and the relative culpability of each applicant; mitigation was considered and discounts appropriately applied.
13 Oct 2004

HKSAR v. WONG CHIU MEI

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHIU MEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC505/2003

The Court found the sentencing judge had proceeded on incorrect aggregate figures and had effectively incorporated mitigation (repayments) into starting points; repayments were less mitigating than appeared because many were financed by further fraudulent transactions. On correction of the figures and proper application of mitigation and totality, a modest reduction of four months was warranted; the judge's order was varied so that the total sentence is 26 months imprisonment.
29 Aug 2003

HKSAR v. CHAN NAI TAK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN NAI TAK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC523/2002

The convictions were upheld because, on the agreed facts and evidence, the applicant as a director and shareholder signed or co-signed the principal documents integral to the bogus letters of credit and the absence of any genuine business records permitted the irresistible inference that he knew of and participated in the conspiracy; the trial judge did not reverse the burden of proof.
28 Jan 2003

HKSAR v. CHEON WAN KAM

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEON WAN KAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC445/2001

The Court upheld the trial judge's assessment of credibility and inference of guilt because the objective indicia — immediate payment to the applicant when the letter of credit proceeds were credited, lack of documentary support for the applicant's debt explanation, the applicant's conduct after allegations arose, and the apology/compensation letter — provided a cogent basis to conclude he conspired to procure payment by means of a forged bill of lading; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against conviction was dismissed.
30 Aug 2002

HKSAR v. YIP CHI FUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. YIP CHI FUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC234/2001

D1: omission in the summing‑up about possible significance of limited matters was not material because D1 actually signed key documents and there was no evidence he did not see them; leave to appeal refused. D2: judge materially omitted to direct the jury on the relevance of good character; leave to appeal granted out of time but, applying the proviso (s83(1) CPO), the omission did not cause miscarriage of justice because the evidence of guilt was overwhelming; appeal dismissed and conviction upheld.