Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissions as evidence

Legal area

Court

22 Nov 2013

HKSAR v. CHONG KA HAI, KEEFE AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. CHONG KA HAI, KEEFE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC411/2012

The appeals were dismissed because the central misrepresentation — that a substantial company existed and would protect capital — was proven false; D1's admissions and the conduct of D1 and D2 established the necessary fraudulent intent (repayments did not negate intent); and the pattern of deposits and rapid withdrawals from D3's account provided reasonable grounds to believe the funds were proceeds of an indictable offence, supporting conviction under Cap 455 s25.
25 Aug 1999

HKSAR v. LEE YUK CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. LEE YUK CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC194/1999

The trial judge was entitled to accept the appellant's admissions as proof of guilt; those admissions coupled with breach of trust justified the 3-year concurrent sentence as a deterrent; there was insufficient mitigation to overturn conviction or sentence, therefore leave to appeal is refused.
20 Aug 1999

HKSAR v. LI SHING Tommy

Citation

HKSAR v. LI SHING Tommy
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA393/1999

The court held that the magistrate rightly accepted the appellant's admissions and found he had taken cash and intended to permanently deprive the company; an asserted intention to repay later is relevant to sentence only and does not preclude theft; a dishonoured cheque would normally be returned to the company and removal and destruction of that cheque by the appellant constituted misappropriation and supported conviction, therefore the conviction was safe.
7 Aug 1998

HKSAR v. FUNG SAI LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. FUNG SAI LUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA412/1998

The appeal court held the magistrate's factual conclusions were open on the evidence: the impostor theory was properly rejected, the appellant's admissions together with contextual details established membership, and while immediate custody was permissible the original 9‑month sentence was excessive and was reduced to 3 months imprisonment.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. CHONG KA HAI, KEEFE AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. LEE YUK CHING

HKSAR v. LI SHING Tommy

HKSAR v. FUNG SAI LUNG