22 Nov 2022
香港特別行政區 訴 梁瑄凌
- Citation
- [2022] HKCFI 3519
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Case number
- HCMA323/2021
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed because, although the judge accepted the appellant made false representations and accepted she knew HR's clawback practice, the prosecution did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that those representations induced HR to pay the commissions — material evidential gaps remained (notably as to the timing of cheque issue and whether the decision‑maker knew the true facts), so the causation/inducement element of s16A was not established.