Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Counterfeiting

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2021

CARTIER INTERNATIONAL AG AND OTHERS v. DYNASTY JEWELRY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1005
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP704/2018

The court found the defendants deliberately and intentionally breached clear disclosure and injunction orders, that the breaches were serious and caused prejudice to the plaintiffs, the contempt was unpurged and mitigation was limited; accordingly the court imposed custodial sentences of six weeks each on the 2nd and 3rd defendants, fined the corporate defendant HK$250,000 payable within 21 days, and ordered the defendants to pay plaintiffs' costs on an indemnity basis with certificate for two counsel.
12 Dec 2005

HKSAR v. CHAN KA KIN AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN KA KIN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC474/2004

The Court held the trial judge's directions on inference, separation of charges and possession were adequate and the convictions were safe; however the prosecution failed to prove the prevalence of the specified offence required to trigger s27 OSCO, so the s27 enhancements were unjustified and were set aside; Tam Wai-pio principle governs calculation of s27 enhancement and Lai's sentence was reduced accordingly.
27 Mar 2002

HKSAR v. SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SHAHID

Citation

HKSAR v. SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SHAHID
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1138/2001

The appeal was allowed because the prosecution materially failed to disclose highly relevant documents concerning a second container and an admission from the forwarding agent UDI; those documents would likely have materially altered the Magistrate's adverse credibility findings and the safety of the convictions, therefore convictions were unsafe and were set aside and sentences quashed.
25 Jul 1997

HKSAR v. CHOY HUNG LUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOY HUNG LUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC227/1997

Given the applicant's age and background, the probation and detention reports recommending disciplinary training, his status as a recidivist and the large quantities of counterfeit and obscene material, the Court held that a training centre order (six months to three years with supervision) was a proper sentence and refused the application to upset it.
2 May 1997

R. v. LAU YUK WAN

Citation

R. v. LAU YUK WAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC389/1996

Because Mr Schade was a central witness known to the parties and likely to leave the jurisdiction, the Crown was obliged to obtain his statement; the absence of such a statement meant the defence may have been deprived of material exculpatory evidence, rendering the conviction unsafe and requiring it to be quashed.
14 Sept 1988

THE QUEEN v. TANG KANG KWONG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TANG KANG KWONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA726/1988

The appeal is dismissed: the sentences (HK$3,000 fine on each of five charges and four months' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently and suspended for two years) were not wrong in principle or excessive because the appellant was a manufacturer and stronger deterrence at source was justified.
30 Jun 1986

THE QUEEN v. MA MUK-YAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MA MUK-YAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA608/1986

The appeal was allowed because, although the offences are serious, the combination of first offender status, a guilty plea and the small‑scale nature of the operation made a custodial sentence disproportionate; the appropriate sentence for the first count is a fine of HKD 5,000 in lieu of imprisonment.

Hong Kong Case Law

CARTIER INTERNATIONAL AG AND OTHERS v. DYNASTY JEWELRY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. CHAN KA KIN AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. SHEIKH MUHAMMAD SHAHID

HKSAR v. CHOY HUNG LUNG

R. v. LAU YUK WAN

THE QUEEN v. TANG KANG KWONG

THE QUEEN v. MA MUK-YAN