5 Sept 2003
HKSAR v. CHAN YEE CHING
- Citation
- HKSAR v. CHAN YEE CHING
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA736/2003
The Magistrate permissibly drew multiple corroborative inferences from circumstantial and documentary evidence — substantial commission payments into the appellant's pay account, signature comparison evidence, AIA's normal office and payment procedures, and personal information linking the appellant — and these concurrent factors supported the conclusion that the appellant knew of and participated in the fraudulent scheme; admissible section 65B statements and expert opinion reinforced those inferences, so the convictions were upheld.