Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Acceptance of advantage

Legal area

Court

26 Apr 2007

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LI MAN TAK AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LI MAN TAK AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR1/2005

Although the offences constituted very serious corruption with adverse impact on market integrity and warranted stiff sentences, the Court concluded the individual sentences were on the low side but not so manifestly inadequate as to justify interference under the review jurisdiction; therefore the application to revise the sentences was refused and the sentences upheld.
10 Oct 2006

HKSAR v. SO HOI CHUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. SO HOI CHUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA398/2006

The court held the magistrate did not err in admitting the ICAC recordings after proper discretionary balancing; the absent witness was properly assessed as unreliable and did not deny a fair trial; the audio evidence established that the 1st appellant agreed to take the keys and tenancy constituting acceptance under s.2(2) even if the flat was not actually occupied; given the seriousness of corruption by a senior police officer and need for deterrence the 2nd appellant's sentence of 15 months was not manifestly excessive. Accordingly both appeals were dismissed.
9 Jan 2003

HKSAR v. LAU CHI HANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU CHI HANG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA744/2002

Convictions affirmed because the Magistrate's credibility findings were justified on the evidence, acceptance of the coupon could be inferred without proof of physical taking, the mis‑statement of an additional donor was immaterial or amendable, characterising the coupon as gift or service would not change the outcome, and any service partly received in Hong Kong suffices for jurisdiction; there was no lurking doubt to overturn the convictions.
1 Aug 2002

HKSAR v. WAN CHARN LEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. WAN CHARN LEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC194/2002

The Court held the loan constituted an advantage under s2(2)(c), the timing and applicant's position as account manager permitted the inference that the loan was an inducement or given on account of showing favour, s11(1) removes the relevance of lack of power or intent as a defense, and on that basis the conviction and nine month sentence were upheld as not unsafe or excessive.
21 Mar 1995

THE QUEEN v. AU CHUN FAI, ALBERT

Citation

THE QUEEN v. AU CHUN FAI, ALBERT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1524/1994

Magistrate's factual findings that there was no authority or acquiescence were entitled to deference because she observed witnesses; the prosecution proved the elements of s.9(1)(a) and the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive, so both conviction and sentence are upheld.
30 Aug 1991

THE QUEEN v. CHAN TIN SANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN TIN SANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA683/1991

The magistrate's careful and detailed findings addressed the credibility issues and legal burden; the prosecution established the offence beyond reasonable doubt; there was no demonstrated misdirection, bias or material defect in the trial process to render the conviction unsafe, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
8 Mar 1985

THE QUEEN v. LI YU-SANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LI YU-SANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA160/1985

The conviction was quashed because the learned magistrate made no finding rejecting the appellant's alternative explanation that the money was received on behalf of a company, leaving the prosecution case unsafe; having weighed the interests of justice, including the weakness of the case being based largely on a single witness and the prejudice to the appellant, the court refused to order a new trial.
27 Jan 1984

THE QUEEN v. MOK CHUN YIU

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MOK CHUN YIU
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC1614/1983

The magistrate erred in law in holding there was no case to answer because the respondent's admissions were capable of supporting a reasonable inference that the payments were accepted as an inducement to forbear disciplinary action under s.9(1)(a); accordingly the magistrate should have left the matter to be decided at trial and, where warranted by the evidence, amend the particulars under s.27 and proceed — appeal allowed and matter remitted for further proceedings.
27 Apr 1983

THE QUEEN v. CHUI KWONG-SHING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHUI KWONG-SHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC207/1983

The Magistrate recognised a material variance and prima facie evidence of a different offence but failed to follow the mandatory s.32(2) procedure to amend the particulars and call the appellant to answer; because the appellant was never afforded the opportunity to answer the varied allegation that the tickets amounted to a loan, the conviction was unsafe and must be quashed.
29 Dec 1980

HO MAN CHAW v. THE QUEEN

Citation

HO MAN CHAW v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC963/1980

The conviction was unsafe because the magistrate failed to give the appellant an opportunity to explain material discrepancies between prior ICAC statements and his sworn evidence on the critical issue whether the donor was a close personal friend under Regulation 7(2)(d); that procedural omission warranted quashing the conviction and ordering a retrial.