Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Using a false instrument

Legal area

Court

7 Jan 2021

HKSAR v. BOLANOS BRUDENCIO JAO

Citation

[2021] HKCA 25
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC10/2020

Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the trial judge erred in his assessment of competing psychiatric evidence on whether the applicant genuinely believed the document to be genuine (and thus lacked mens rea) and that sentencing may have failed to adequately account for the negligible risk of loss and personal mitigation, making the grounds of appeal against conviction and sentence arguable.
22 Mar 2018

HKSAR v. IP CHI HUNG

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 608
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA246/2017

The magistrate's credibility assessments of prosecution witnesses and the cumulative weight of circumstantial and direct evidence (distinctive features described by PW4, PW3's collection and signature on the logbook, duty and hiring records and seizure of the logbook from the appellant's locker) established beyond reasonable doubt that the exhibited logbook was the appellant's, that 17 entries were false and that the appellant knew of the falsity and intended to induce acceptance; the appellate court will not disturb those findings and thus dismisses the appeal.
12 Nov 2015

HKSAR v. WOO MEI BO, MABLE

Citation

HKSAR v. WOO MEI BO, MABLE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC274/2014

The trial judge failed to give credit for the applicant's partial repayment; although the HK$1.5 million did not constitute full restitution, it reduced the victim's loss by about 19% and warranted a small reduction in sentence; accordingly the Court allowed the renewed appeal in part and substituted the overall sentence on the principal counts from 6 years to 5 years 10 months to reflect that reduction while keeping concurrent sentencing.
14 May 2015

HKSAR v. K.C. DIPENDRA

Citation

HKSAR v. K.C. DIPENDRA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA734/2014

The magistrate validly found on the evidence and proper credibility assessment that Exhibit P6 was created after 5 March 2013, was not signed by the sponsor, and that the appellant knew it was false; circumstantial evidence (the appellant supplying his own phone number as the sponsor's) supported knowledge; thus the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction must stand.
3 Dec 2014

HKSAR v. WOO MEI-BO,MABLE

Citation

HKSAR v. WOO MEI-BO,MABLE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC274/2014

Bail pending appeal was refused because there were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal: the trial judge's finding that PW1 truthfully testified the applicant used false bank statements was upheld, the handwriting evidence did not negate use, and possession and knowledge regarding exhibit P16 could be inferred from the circumstances (huge claimed balance versus negligible actual balance).
15 Oct 2013

HKSAR v. MAZHAR TAHA AHMED ELMANSOURI

Citation

HKSAR v. MAZHAR TAHA AHMED ELMANSOURI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC165/2012

The Court refused the applications to admit fresh evidence under s.83V (evidence inadmissible, hearsay, or not probative and no prejudice shown), held that the Trial Judge erred in labelling the registered address as false but that error was a minor factor and, applying the proviso, dismissed the conviction appeal; it also concluded the 5-year sentence was not manifestly excessive given the planning, international element and large amount and dismissed the sentence appeal.
15 Aug 2013

HKSAR v. SHEUNG KIT FUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SHEUNG KIT FUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC149/2013

Taking a broad view on the merits for a bail application, the Court found the trial judge had reasonably rejected the verification defence and concluded the applicants sought to persuade the bank to accept the false instruments; the appeal was not reasonably arguable and there was an attendant risk of absconding, therefore bail pending appeal was refused for both applicants.
31 May 2013

HKSAR v. MAZHAR TAHA AHMED ELMANSOURI

Citation

HKSAR v. MAZHAR TAHA AHMED ELMANSOURI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC165/2012

The trial judge's findings that P2 was a forgery and that the applicant knew of its falsity when he presented it to the bank were properly supported by evidence (forgery features, PW12's admissible evidence, applicant's inconsistent accounts and the deliberate change of company name to match the payee); therefore leave to appeal against conviction is refused. However, having regard to comparable authorities and that the applicant faced only one charge, leave to appeal against sentence is granted as the five‑year term may be arguably excessive.
3 May 2013

HKSAR v. PANG BYRON

Citation

HKSAR v. PANG BYRON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA425/2012

The appellate court concluded the magistrate properly directed himself on the elements of s73, fairly assessed the evidence and witness credibility (in particular accepting Dr Tsang\'s evidence and computer records), and was entitled to find the EER was false, that the appellant used it knowing it was false with intent to induce staff; accordingly the conviction was safe and the appeal failed.
28 Jan 2013

HKSAR v. YUEN KA KUI, CHRIS

Citation

HKSAR v. YUEN KA KUI, CHRIS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA410/2012

The court refused the fresh evidence application for failure to satisfy section 83V; held that the magistrate did not err in treating the Appellant's conduct as aggravated by his status as a serving police officer and by deliberate forgery; loss of job and benefits did not operate as sufficient mitigation here; concurrent sentences of 3 months on each count were not manifestly excessive and the appeal against sentence is dismissed.