Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Bribery

  • 9 Sept 2025

    香港特別行政區 訴 翟國雄

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4164
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA300/2024

    On a full rehearing of the evidence the court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that (1) the person who met PW1 and PW2 was the appellant; (2) PW2 was acting as an agent of the deceased for funeral‑related matters by virtue of the P3 instrument and conduct; (3) the appellant made an offer of HK$3,000 as a rebate/commission connected to the deceased's funeral arrangements; and (4) the appellant intended the benefit to influence PW2 in her role as agent—therefore the conviction under s9(2)(a) Cap.201 is safe and the appeal is dismissed.

  • 12 Feb 2025

    香港特別行政區 訴 朱磊

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1144
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA194/2024

    On the whole evidence the trial judge was entitled to find the watch was given in connection with the appellant's public role and to keep him favourably disposed to EEM; the appellant knew reporting obligations and failed to declare the gift; the attendance list was a material item for reimbursement approvals and the prosecution proved dishonesty rather than mere negligence; therefore convictions on all counts were safe beyond reasonable doubt and the appeal fails.

  • 10 May 2024

    香港特別行政區 訴 歐頌賢

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 1406
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA312/2022

    On rehearing the High Court concluded the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the street singing performance and the calligraphy class were provided by the appellant as inducements to secure votes; alternative innocent explanations were reasonably open on the evidence, so convictions could not stand and were quashed.

  • 31 Jan 2024

    HKSAR v. XU ZHUO AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 103
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC139/2021

    The convictions were quashed because the judge made critical findings about the principal's lack of permission without an adequate evidential foundation (principal did not give evidence and PW1's testimony was unreliable on key points); furthermore the court held that a principal's permission under s9 POBO can, if properly established, operate even where the underlying act is illegal, and on the state of the evidence there was material doubt such that convictions could not stand and retrial was not justified.

  • 16 Dec 2021

    HKSAR v. LEUNG YUK WING

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 1933
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC139/2021

    Bail pending appeal granted because the applicant's first ground — that the absence of the employer's principal from the witness box may have led the judge to rely on inadmissible or insufficient hearsay and unsupported findings about her knowledge — made the appeal reasonably arguable and afforded a real chance of success; the exceptional test for bail on the merit ground was therefore satisfied in respect of that point.

  • 25 Nov 2021

    香港特別行政區 訴 梁展維

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 1785
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC139/2020

    The Court held that the Crown proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant solicited a monetary advantage within the meaning of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (an 'advantage' may be monetary and need not be directly received by the appellant), that PW1's evidence combined with contemporaneous WhatsApp messages established the offence, and that convictions on the relevant counts are safe; sentencing was excessive in aggregate and was reduced by the Court to reflect compensation and proportionality resulting in a total term of 34 months' imprisonment.

  • 11 Mar 2020

    HKSAR v. CHENG WING KIN (鄭永健)

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFA 3
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC5/2019

    The word 'corruptly' in ECICO s7(1) operates to confine the offering, soliciting or acceptance of 'advantages' to conduct that objectively tends to undermine fair, open and honest elections; it does not add a separate subjective element requiring an intention to hinder elections (no 'double intent'); the prosecution must prove intent to offer the advantage as an inducement, and that the offer was of a nature and made in circumstances with a tendency to subvert electoral integrity.

  • 26 Jun 2019

    HKSAR v. TSANG YAM-KUEN, DONALD (曾蔭權)

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFA 24
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC29/2018

    The trial judge's directions on wilfulness and seriousness were inadequate because they failed to explain to the jury how to assess deliberate non-disclosure and the duty to disclose where bribery was not established; this deficiency was material given the jury acquitted or hung on the bribery count, and accordingly the conviction for misconduct in public office was quashed; no retrial was ordered on grounds that the appellant had already served the sentence and the interests of justice did not require it.

  • 30 Apr 2019

    香港特別行政區 訴 黃景光及另一人

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 1100
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA88/2018

    The judge materially departed from the prosecution’s pleaded case by treating the prosecution witness as agent of the building owners rather than of the management company named in the indictment and failed to give the defence any opportunity to address that new basis; that procedural unfairness rendered the convictions unsafe and required quashing of convictions and sentences, with further submissions ordered on whether to remit for retrial.