Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wilful blindness

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2019

HKSAR v. HARJANI HARESH MURLIDHAR

Citation

[2019] HKCFA 47
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC17/2018

The appeal is dismissed. The correct test for s25(1) OSCO is an objective one: determine the facts and circumstances known to the defendant (including any personal grounds he adduces) and ask whether any reasonable person with that knowledge would be bound to conclude the property was proceeds of crime. A merely honest but objectively unreasonable belief does not suffice. Wilful blindness may support inference of knowledge but ordinarily courts should apply the reasonable-grounds test. Section 159A(2) does not apply to the reasonable-grounds limb of s25(1), and conspiracy can be established w…
7 Sept 2018

RE MR JONATHAN CAPLAN, QC

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2070
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1262/2018

The application was allowed because the appeal raises a substantial question of law of great and general importance, the applicant has particular and direct expertise including prior involvement in the development of Hong Kong jurisprudence on mens rea for section 25(1) OSCO (notably Oei Hengky Wiryo and Carson Yeung), and the DPP's considered professional judgment and undertaking to provide a local junior counsel weigh in favor of admission in the public interest.
16 May 2018

HKSAR v. HARJANI HARESH MURLIDHAR

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 26
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC60/2017

Leave to appeal was granted and a question certified for appeal because the issue whether wilful blindness can suffice for liability under s25(1) Cap 455 is important and reasonably arguable, and it is reasonably arguable that a substantial and grave injustice has occurred; accordingly the matter is fit for full appellate determination.
10 Apr 2018

GALLERIA (HONG KONG), LIMITED (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND ANOTHER v. DBS BANK LTD., HONG KONG BRANCH

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 773
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL4/2016

The court appointed a single joint insolvency expert to cover the periods identified by Galleria HK and directed the parties to agree directions because insolvency is a straightforward accounting issue susceptible to joint expert assessment; the court refused leave to adduce expert evidence on trade finance and credit banking practice because it was not shown to be necessary or likely to assist the tribunal given the available documentary and witness evidence and the speculative nature of the proposed expert opinions.
5 Apr 2017

JONATHAN LU AND OTHERS v. PAUL CHAN MO-PO AND ANOTHER

Citation

JONATHAN LU AND OTHERS v. PAUL CHAN MO-PO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV252/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions raised were either misconceived, not reasonably arguable or mere re‑argument of the substantive appeal and the legal positions relied upon (including the Roberts v Bass approach to recklessness and malice) were sound; the Court confirmed qualified privilege is fact‑sensitive, upheld that the jury's malice finding was set aside properly for misdirection, found no exceptional circumstances to grant leave and ordered costs against the plaintiffs.
29 Sept 2014

HKSAR v. GAVISH OMER

Citation

HKSAR v. GAVISH OMER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC211/2013

Cumulative circumstantial evidence proved beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant was a knowing party to a joint enterprise to deal with 342 gold bars worth HK$139 million and had reasonable grounds to believe they were proceeds of an indictable offence; conviction affirmed and five-year sentence upheld.
11 Jul 2013

HKSAR v. LIU TJONG SLAM

Citation

HKSAR v. LIU TJONG SLAM
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC8/2013

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant was correctly convicted on the alternative limb (reasonable grounds to believe) such that any challenge to the knowing limb would be academic, and because the total sentence of five years (4 years and 2 years with six months consecutive) was not excessive given the applicant's knowledge of the father's drug activities and the proximity of the facts to wilful blindness.
9 Oct 2012

HKSAR v. YUEN KWOK YING

Citation

HKSAR v. YUEN KWOK YING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC199/2012

Bail pending appeal was granted because the trial judge's reasons were equivocal and could support a conviction under the wrong limb of Section 25(1), the learned judge did not explain the relevance or use of the forensic accountant's evidence, and the co-defendant's successful bail application on grounds affecting fairness indicated a real likelihood of success on appeal for the Applicant.
31 Oct 2008

HKSAR v. HO KA KEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. HO KA KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC196/2007

Majority upheld the conviction: the evidence permitted the judge to find that the applicant practised deceit and either knew of the falsity or was wilfully blind/reckless such that s.16A was satisfied; the trial judge acted within his management powers in permitting an alternative charge and the stylistic deficiencies in the Reasons for Verdict did not render the conviction unsafe where evidence was sufficient.
19 Aug 1992

R. v. EMEKA JOE UDEOJI

Citation

R. v. EMEKA JOE UDEOJI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC146/1992

The judge erred in giving a wilful blindness direction and in suggesting an objective 'should have suspected' test for knowledge absent evidence raising suspicion; the misdirection was material and required allowing the appeal and ordering a retrial.