22 Dec 2025
香港特別行政區 訴 許志銘
- Citation
- [2025] HKCFI 6334
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA1/2025
The appellate court upheld the magistrate's credibility findings and factual inferences that the appellant was the Carousell seller/manager or was fully aware of the sale, that objective factors (HK$1,200 price, lack of packaging, absence of corroboration for the claimed third party) gave the appellant reasonable grounds to suspect the watch was counterfeit, and that the appellant failed to adduce sufficient evidence under s.26AAB(a)(i)-(iii), including that reasonable efforts could not have established authenticity; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal was dismissed.