20 Mar 1997
R v. LIN KUO LIANG DAVID
- Citation
- R v. LIN KUO LIANG DAVID
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC351/1996
Because at the time of the alleged attempt the chose in action did not exist, under the impossibility rule as established in Haughton v. Smith the appellant could not be convicted of attempting to obtain property by deception; the conviction on that charge was quashed but, applying s83A(2) CPO, the court substituted conviction for the alternative offence of attempting to take deposits contrary to s12(1) Banking Ordinance and imposed a two year sentence.