11 Jul 1977
Section 10(1)(b) does not operate retrospectively because it imposes liability based on control at the date of charge; therefore acquisition of property before the Ordinance commenced does not bar prosecution if control exists after commencement, and the court refused to make the declarations sought.
3 Nov 1976
The Court held that the presumption in s.10(2) applied given the close relationships and surrounding circumstances, and that the trial judge was entitled to infer appellant's control of the property and funds; conviction was therefore upheld. The Court also held that valuation under s.12(2) at the time of trial (or sale proceeds for previously sold properties) was appropriate; confiscation and fine were upheld, but the custodial term was reduced from six to four years as excessive.
5 Nov 1975
The conviction was upheld because the admitted bank drafts and notations were admissible and, on the totality of the evidence and reasonable inference, the appellant was in control of pecuniary resources disproportionate to his official emoluments and was aware of the account activity; hence he failed to give a satisfactory explanation as required by s.10(1)(b).