24 May 2012
FU KOR KUEN PATRICK AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
- Citation
- FU KOR KUEN PATRICK AND ANOTHER v. HKSAR
- Court
- Court of Final Appeal
- Case number
- FACC4/2011
Section 295(7) of the SFO imposes a persuasive burden on a defendant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the purpose of conduct falling within s295(5)(a)-(c) did not include creating a false or misleading appearance of active trading; subsections (5) and (7) apply even where the conduct also falls within subsection (1); applying those principles to the facts the appellants established that their sole purpose was commission‑farming and therefore the s295(7) defence succeeded, so convictions were quashed and no retrial ordered.