Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prevention of bribery ordinance

Legal area

Court

19 Apr 2024

HKSAR v. HA BUT YEE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 315
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC104/2023

The single judge did not determine the substantive challenge to the confiscation order but referred the appellant's leave application to the full court to decide whether the appellant may pursue the leave application absent from the jurisdiction and to adjudicate the contested legal and factual issues underpinning the amount of the confiscation order; the referral was necessary given the issues of presence and the interplay with restraint order variations.
10 Dec 2020

香港特別行政區訴郭俊希

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2986
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA610/2018

Appeal allowed because the Crown's evidence did not exclude reasonable alternative inferences (notably that payments and communications related to technical assistance or pre-test modifications rather than inducement to certify unqualified vehicles); conviction was therefore unsafe and was quashed.
20 Jul 2018

HKSAR v. TSANG YAM KUEN, DONALD

Citation

[2018] HKCA 425
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC55/2017

The Court upheld the conviction for misconduct in public office because the jury, having been properly directed, necessarily rejected the applicant’s account and found deliberate concealment of dealings that placed him in a serious conflict of interest; the judge’s directions on wilfulness and seriousness were legally adequate in context; sentence was reduced from 20 months to 12 months as the original starting point was excessive; the costs order was excessive and reduced to HK$1,000,000 as compensatory and reasonable given the applicant’s conduct during investigation and trial.
8 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. SAMUEL ALEXANDRE NICOLAS BONGARD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 266
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA2/2018

An offer of a substantial sum (EUR 50,000) to induce bank staff to give preferential treatment is not a mere technical breach; such conduct undermines the agency relationship and reputation of the principal and ordinarily requires immediate custodial sentence for deterrence; the appellant's foreignness and financial difficulties do not constitute exceptional circumstances to suspend imprisonment; the magistrate's three month sentence on plea was not manifestly excessive.
8 Dec 2016

HKSAR v. LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH

Citation

HKSAR v. LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC6/2016

Court held that a person who undertakes to act for another may become an agent for s.9 POBO even without a pre-existing duty; board minutes fall within 'other document' in s.9(3); attribution of knowledge or permission to a company must be determined by reference to the purpose of the statute and cannot be presumed to defeat the statutory scheme; convictions and appeals were dismissed.
17 Jun 2016

HKSAR v. MA SIN CHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. MA SIN CHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC424/2013

The appeal was allowed and convictions quashed because the trial judge failed to fairly and accurately present and place before the jury the defence’s sustained attack on the prosecution’s key expert (Mr Cheng), including downplaying the importance of his credibility and failing to direct the jury adequately on how to assess his evidence; this failure meant the defence was not properly presented and the convictions were unsafe (additional concerns were raised about the admissibility and proper judicial direction on evidence of other assistance).
26 Jan 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN CHI WAN STEPHEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN CHI WAN STEPHEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC183/2014

The Court refused to grant certificates under section 32(2) because the legal principles in issue were already well established, Questions 1 and 2 were fact‑sensitive rather than points of general importance, Question 3 was not reasonably arguable, and the applicants offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay; accordingly the applications were dismissed and costs awarded to the respondent.
27 Nov 2015

HKSAR v. TIN HOI YAN

Citation

HKSAR v. TIN HOI YAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA377/2015

Conviction upheld because the evidence supported the magistrates findings that the payments were loans/advantages accepted by a prescribed officer without Chief Executive permission contrary to s.3 POBO; corrupt motive and triviality are not required elements of the offence; the magistrate lawfully assessed credibility and good character and her findings were open on the evidence.
11 Aug 2015

HKSAR v. MA SIN CHI AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. MA SIN CHI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC424/2013

Court held that several contested grounds raised matters of law only (thus leave not required under s.82(2)(a)): for the 1st applicant grounds 14–18 were law-only and for the 2nd applicant grounds 10–12 were law-only; mixed law-and-fact grounds (1st ground 19; 2nd grounds 6 and 9) required leave, but leave was granted only where the court found the ground reasonably arguable (1st ground 19 and several other uncontested grounds) and refused leave where grounds were speculative or not reasonably arguable (2nd grounds 6 and 9). Leave to appeal against sentence was granted for both applicants.
30 Sept 2014

HKSAR v. YU OI KEE

Citation

HKSAR v. YU OI KEE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC283/2014

Grant bail pending appeal because the applicant demonstrated arguable grounds of appeal with a reasonable prospect of success on the principal/agent issue central to the conspiracy charge, and because the sentence length meant she might otherwise serve the majority of her term before the appeal was resolved.