Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Short selling

  • 14 Jul 2020

    ANDREW EDWARD LEFT v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFA 23
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMV195/2019

    Leave to appeal refused because the applicant's legal propositions were not reasonably arguable: Sin Kam Wah principles apply to section 277 and there is no justification to adopt a different recklessness test for market misconduct; even if a more demanding subjective test were required the MMT found Mr Left subjectively appreciated the unreasonableness of his risk-taking; negligence remained a distinct and applicable basis for liability; unlicensed commentators are not presumptively immune; freedom of expression does not protect dissemination of reckless or negligent false market information.

  • 8 Feb 1996

    THE QUEEN v. YEUNG YEE HING

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. YEUNG YEE HING
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA1097/1995

    Given the appellant's position as a securities dealer, his trading pattern and admissions, the magistrate reasonably inferred he knew the quantity of stock he held and that selling without stock available demonstrated deliberate dishonesty; therefore the Crown proved the offence under s.80(1)&(2) and the conviction is properly upheld.

  • 27 Nov 1991

    THE QUEEN v. LAM NAI SUM, ROBIN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. LAM NAI SUM, ROBIN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA817/1991

    Section 80(1) of the Securities Ordinance Cap.333 does not create an offence of strict liability; the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did not have an honest and reasonable belief that they (or their principal) had a presently exercisable and unconditional right to dispose of the securities. The magistrate's contrary allocation of burden to the defendants was wrong; convictions are quashed.

  • 3 Mar 1987

    SAN FU & CO (a firm) v. SO SUN YUEN

    Citation
    SAN FU & CO (a firm) v. SO SUN YUEN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV114/1986

    The Court of Appeal concluded the trial judge had given questionable and insufficient reasons for disbelieving the defendant, failed to properly assess material evidence (notably the sequence of London trades), and therefore the verdict could not stand; appeal allowed and a new trial ordered.