Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Conspiracy to export unmanifested cargo

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2021

香港特別行政區訴陳港文及另一人

Citation

[2021] HKDC 1394
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC101/2016

Court accepted statutory presumptions as defendants failed to rebut with credible evidence; it fixed benefit amounts at the bank inflows (HK$6,529,473 and HK$12,324,116), excluded the value of seized goods from benefit because goods were in custody and could not yield profit, determined realizable assets (D2: HK$4,874,808.34; D3: HK$7,901,421.45) and ordered confiscation equal to those realizable assets with specified payment deadlines and default imprisonment terms.
19 Dec 2014

HKSAR v. SZE MEI MUN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. SZE MEI MUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC56/2014

Leave to appeal was refused because the Court was satisfied that although the trial judge erred in suggesting a reverse burden, that error was not applied in his factual analysis and did not affect the verdict; the Court of Appeal permissibly applied the s83(1) proviso; admission of the Part VIIIA depositions did not render the trial unfair given cross-examination, disclosed discrepant statements and overwhelming circumstantial and documentary evidence linking applicants to the conspiracy; and no substantial and grave injustice was demonstrated.
24 Jul 2014

HKSAR v. SZE MEI MUN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. SZE MEI MUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC60/2013

The court held that the trial judge applied the s 77F(1)(d) test to the specific facts and properly concluded that no unfairness was likely; the issue was fact dependent and did not constitute a point of law of great and general importance, so certification under s 32(2) Cap.484 was refused.
14 May 2014

HKSAR v. SZE MEI MUN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. SZE MEI MUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC60/2013

Court held (1) the judge was wrong as a matter of law to state s94A CPO relieved the prosecution of proving absence of manifests in a conspiracy charge, because s94A cannot impose a reverse burden on conspiracy; (2) notwithstanding that legal error, the convictions for conspiracy (Charge 1) and related money‑dealing charges for 1st‑5th applicants were supported by overwhelming circumstantial and direct evidence (four Masters' testimony, invoices, VCS forms, ledger, bank flows, notebook), so the proviso applies and convictions on Charge 1 and specified related charges are upheld; (3) evidence…
28 Aug 2008

HKSAR v. LAU HUNG PO

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU HUNG PO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA343/2008

The magistrate was entitled to accept the evidence of the two marine police officers despite alleged minor discrepancies because those matters did not contradict the material evidence that boxes were transferred to a speedboat and taken into Mainland waters; on the totality of circumstantial evidence (remote location, lorry backed close to boats, prolonged unloading, appellant's conduct) it was open to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was party to the conspiracy, and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
2 Aug 2002

HKSAR v. ZHOU ZHAO BIN

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHOU ZHAO BIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC56/2002

The Court held the convictions were safe: there was independent direct and circumstantial documentary evidence linking the applicant (as managing director/major shareholder of Quite Yam) to the export of unmanifested cargoes, which justified admitting acts and declarations of an absent co-conspirator made in furtherance of the conspiracy; the trial judge was entitled to accept the accomplice's evidence despite minor discrepancies and motive to lie; consequently leave to appeal against conviction was refused and the sentence appeal was not pursued.
16 Jan 1997

THE QUEEN v. CHENG SIU-KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHENG SIU-KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC258/1994

The applications for leave to appeal out of time were refused because no good grounds were shown: the time for applying had passed, the applicant had previously abandoned a timely application, the sentences were within the proper range, and the claimed assistance did not provide a basis for out‑of‑time leave since it did not alter the position at the relevant time; relief, if any, lies by petitioning for Executive clemency.
16 Jan 1997

THE QUEEN v. CHENG SIU-KEUNG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHENG SIU-KEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC737/1993

The applications for leave to appeal out of time were refused because no good grounds were shown to reopen time-barred sentence appeals; assistance rendered after the relevant procedural opportunities does not ordinarily justify granting leave out of time and the appropriate remedy for post-sentence assistance is a petition for executive clemency.
23 Mar 1995

R. v. TANG SHU WAN and Others

Citation

R. v. TANG SHU WAN and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC258/1994

The Court held that the amended particulars to the conspiracy charge were valid and a single conspiracy survived intermittent inactivity; the trial judge properly assessed accomplice evidence and was entitled to comment on failure to give evidence; D4 was rightly convicted on Charges 2, 3 and 4 because evidence established his knowledge and participation; D7's convictions on Charges 2 and 4 were upheld; D5's conviction on Charge 3 failed because the particulars required knowledge of certain co-conspirators which was not proved, but his conviction under Charge 5 was upheld applying the proviso…