Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Rule against duplicity

  • 11 Jul 2016

    HKSAR v. SALIM, MAJED

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SALIM, MAJED
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC1/2015

    Court held (1) Oei was correctly decided: prosecution need not prove that property in fact represents proceeds of an indictable offence where liability is founded on the 'reasonable grounds to believe' limb of s25(1); (2) mens rea is assessed by reference to the grounds available to the defendant and the Seng Yuet Fong formulation as applied in Pang Hung Fai governs assessment of 'reasonable grounds to believe'; (3) the 1995 amendments re-cast s25 to focus on property and grounds known to the defendant and legislative history and confiscation regime support that change; and (4) the rule again…

  • 11 Jul 2016

    HKSAR v. YEUNG KA SING, CARSON

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YEUNG KA SING, CARSON
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC5/2015

    On proper construction of OSCO s25(1) the prosecution need not prove that the property actually was proceeds of an indictable offence; that characteristic is an element of mens rea (knowledge or reasonable grounds to believe). The mens rea inquiry must focus on the grounds available to the accused (Pang Hung Fai/Seng Yuet Fong), including his beliefs which may be exculpatory. Aggregation of multiple dealings into single counts is permissible where the dealings are connected and form a unified scheme or common purpose of concealment and no unfairness results; the Court declared the Court of Ap…

  • 11 Jul 2016

    HKSAR v. YEUNG KA SING, CARSON

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YEUNG KA SING, CARSON
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC6/2015

    The Court held that s25(1) OSCO does not require proof that the property actually constituted proceeds of an indictable offence (Oei correctly decided); the mens rea limb ‘having reasonable grounds to believe’ is assessed by reference to the grounds available to the defendant (Seng Yuet Fong / Pang Hung Fai) including subjective beliefs that may be exculpatory and the ‘knew or ought to have known’ phrase in Pang Hung Fai is not to be read as importing negligence; and aggregation of multiple dealings in money‑laundering charges is permissible where the dealings form a common enterprise or are…

  • 19 Aug 2015

    HKSAR v. YANG SIGAI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YANG SIGAI
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC22/2015

    Leave to appeal was granted because the court found the four posed questions are of great and general importance and require authoritative determination: (1) the application of the rule against duplicity and its exceptions to s.25 OSCO and whether money laundering can be a continuing offence, (2) the proper formulation for assessing 'reasonable grounds' and reconciliation of Seng Yuet Fong with Pang Hung Fai, (3) whether the prosecution must prove the proceeds were proceeds of an indictable offence, and (4) the extent of a trial judge's obligation to make positive findings about mens rea when…

  • 1 Jun 2015

    HKSAR v. YEUNG KA SING, CARSON

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YEUNG KA SING, CARSON
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC101/2014

    The Court refused to certify the questions for the Court of Final Appeal: respondent's question was declined because certification would be contingent on an application for leave to appeal which had not been made and the respondent was not seeking leave; appellant's first question was declined because this Court is bound by the Court of Final Appeal's decision in Oei Hengky Wiryo; appellant's second question was declined because the trial judge was entitled to disbelieve the appellant, treat transactions as unexplained and nonetheless conclude the appellant had reasonable grounds to believe t…