Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counterfeit currency

Legal area

Court

9 Nov 2022

HKSAR v. MALIK MOHAMMAD TARIQ also known as MOHAMMAD TARIQ MALIK

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1642
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC203/2021

Leave to appeal against conviction was refused because the grounds were not reasonably arguable: the trial judge's findings as to possession and counterfeit nature were sustainable; the absence of DNA/fingerprints did not undermine the inference of possession; the new information alleging a frame-up was investigated and found unreliable; allegations against prior counsel were unparticularised and refuted, and the application constituted a waste of resources warranting a two month loss of time order.
10 Mar 2022

HKSAR v. MARISTELA RHEA NERISSA CURBI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCA 422
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC246/2021

The judge’s findings that the applicants had the requisite knowledge or belief that the HK$500 notes were counterfeit, based on admissions, VRIs and CCTV evidence, were not reasonably arguable as erroneous; accordingly leave to appeal against conviction (1st applicant) and against sentence (both applicants) was refused and the sentences were held within the available discretion.
16 Nov 2021

HKSAR v. MALIK MOHAMMAD TARIQ also known as MOHAMMAD TARIQ MALIK

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1722
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC203/2021

The court refused bail pending appeal because the applicant failed to demonstrate a strong likelihood of success on appeal or satisfy the time ground; his grounds (alleged inadequate representation, absence of fingerprints, unverified new information) did not establish a real chance of success given experienced trial counsel, the trial judge's adverse findings and the strength of the circumstantial inference of possession from discovery of the counterfeit notes under the applicant's pillow.
4 Oct 2005

HKSAR v. LAM WAI YIP HUGO

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM WAI YIP HUGO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC64/2005

The conviction stands because the trial judge lawfully applied the burden and standard of proof and reasonably preferred PW1's evidence over the Applicant's and defence witnesses; the 50% enhancement under s.27 OSCO was justified by the increase in volume of counterfeit notes and by precedent.
13 Oct 2004

HKSAR v. LAM WAI MING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAM WAI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC44/2004

Leave to appeal was dismissed: the judge did not err in assessing credibility because the applicant had made inculpatory admissions at arrest so the right to silence principle relied on by the applicant did not apply; the judge's misstatement about a peripheral timing issue for DW2 did not materially affect the verdict; and the sentencing enhancement of 50% was justified by cogent statistics showing prevalence and a rising trend in counterfeit $100 notes, warranting deterrence under Cap.455.
3 Sept 2002

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI HAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI HAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC102/2002

The Court held the sentencing judge did not err in principle: a two‑year starting point per counterfeit possession was justifiable given the statutory maximum and the ongoing harm, a 40% reduction for guilty plea and assistance was appropriate, the judge applied the totality principle to the aggregate sentence, and therefore the aggregate sentence for the first and second charges was not manifestly excessive.
13 Jun 2001

HKSAR v. KUI SIU TONG

Citation

HKSAR v. KUI SIU TONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC51/2001

The Court upheld the trial judge's finding that, on the totality of the evidence (timing of deposits and ATM withdrawals, the nature of the notes, and the Applicant's interview admissions), it was open and proper to infer that the Applicant deposited the counterfeit notes and that he knew or suspected they were counterfeit; the appeal was dismissed.
27 May 1998

HKSAR v. LAU YUK WAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU YUK WAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC656/1997

The Court held that the trial judge correctly exercised his residual discretion: the unrecorded undercover conversation was admissible because the operation amounted to a legitimate sting and the evidence was probative rather than so prejudicial as to deny a fair trial; the judge adequately assessed accomplice testimony, inconsistencies and the appellant's character; the conviction was safe and the 4 year sentence appropriate given the scale of offending and minimal entrapment.
18 Sept 1996

R. v. LAM SIU WAN

Citation

R. v. LAM SIU WAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC241/1996

The Court upheld the total effective sentence as appropriate because the applicant brought a very substantial quantity of counterfeit coins into Hong Kong, creating a real risk of financial harm; although the trial judge's arithmetic method in structuring concurrent terms was criticised, the overall sentence of 3 years 3 months (first count) and 15 months (second count) running concurrently was within permissible bounds and not interfered with.
21 Nov 1995

R. v. LAU CHOR HUNG

Citation

R. v. LAU CHOR HUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC69/1995

The conviction was upheld because the jury were entitled to accept the accomplice's detailed evidence which was corroborated by fingerprint and documentary evidence, surveillance and undercover operations; the summing‑up was fair and comprehensive so alleged judicial prejudice or failures were unfounded; complaints about non‑disclosure and trial conduct were matters for defence counsel and did not render the trial unsafe; the sentence of 8 years was within proper range given the offence's seriousness, international implications and applicant's antecedents.