Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prevention of bribery ordinance s.9

Legal area

Court

6 Jan 2012

JEREMY PAUL EGERTON HOBBINS v. ROYAL SKANDIA LIFE ASSURANCE LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

JEREMY PAUL EGERTON HOBBINS v. ROYAL SKANDIA LIFE ASSURANCE LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL15/2010

Clearwater was not Skandia's agent; Clearwater adequately disclosed it would be remunerated by commissions in accordance with long‑established commercial practice; there was no breach of fiduciary or statutory duties, no illegality under PBO s.9, no actionable misrepresentation and therefore the ILAS contracts are enforceable and no restitution or disgorgement is ordered.
29 Apr 2004

HKSAR v. PETER NORMAN ELLIOTT

Citation

HKSAR v. PETER NORMAN ELLIOTT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC126/2003

Convictions on charges 2 and 3–6 are upheld because the evidence established that the applicant accepted monetary advantages connected to acts in relation to his principal Standard Bank London Ltd's affairs (discounting/loan arrangements) without lawful authority or reasonable excuse; the trial judge properly assessed credibility (including of accomplice Heng) and rejected the applicant's claimed honest belief and pre‑employment entitlement; the discounting arrangements in issue were correctly characterised as loan/credit facilities for purposes of the offences and the particulars were suffic…
20 Oct 1988

THE QUEEN v. LEE KWOK-TSUN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LEE KWOK-TSUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA762/1988

The magistrate had no jurisdiction to convict the appellant on the amended charge Q because the amendment (changing date and amount) was made before trial without the Attorney-General's consent and s.32 did not apply; therefore the conviction on Q and on charges L, N and P (also conceded unsupported) were quashed. Convictions on charges R and T were upheld because the prosecution proved offers by paid cheques credited to the employee's account, supported by witness evidence and business records establishing possession and the purpose of securing favours, satisfying the elements of s.9 offence…
4 Apr 1975

AMAR SINGH DHILLON AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN

Citation

AMAR SINGH DHILLON AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC142/1975

Majority held the trial judge was wrong to consider himself precluded from suspending sentences by precedent; on the facts (no repetition, restitution, lesser seriousness) the appropriate disposition was to allow the appeal and suspend the one year sentences for two years.

Hong Kong Case Law

JEREMY PAUL EGERTON HOBBINS v. ROYAL SKANDIA LIFE ASSURANCE LTD AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. PETER NORMAN ELLIOTT

THE QUEEN v. LEE KWOK-TSUN

AMAR SINGH DHILLON AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN