Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Deception

  • 10 Mar 2011

    HKSAR v. ONG SIU SIN, KEVIN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. ONG SIU SIN, KEVIN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA734/2009

    The Court upheld the magistrate’s factual findings on credibility and concluded that promises, acknowledgements and delivery of cheques (including cheques drawn on closed accounts or crossed to cash) established legally enforceable liabilities capable of being enforced and proved beyond reasonable doubt; amendments to charges to reflect approximate sums were permissible under s27 where no injustice resulted; exhibit P4 was admissible as evidence of acknowledgement despite absence of a Bank of China affirmation; the 11‑month delay in producing the statement of findings, while regrettable, was…

  • 31 Oct 2008

    HKSAR v. HO KA KEUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. HO KA KEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC196/2007

    Majority upheld the conviction: the evidence permitted the judge to find that the applicant practised deceit and either knew of the falsity or was wilfully blind/reckless such that s.16A was satisfied; the trial judge acted within his management powers in permitting an alternative charge and the stylistic deficiencies in the Reasons for Verdict did not render the conviction unsafe where evidence was sufficient.

  • 29 Oct 2008

    HKSAR v. CHAN HON MING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHAN HON MING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC314/2007

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the trial judge did not err: the evidence of the applicant's departure was admissible as potentially supporting the prosecution given the immediacy and unity of a series of similar offences committed shortly before departure, and the judge's directions properly instructed the jury to consider innocent explanations and to decide each count separately, so the convictions were not rendered unsafe.

  • 25 Apr 2008

    HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI YIP

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI YIP
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC315/2005

    The Court held that the applicant by dishonestly arranging and requesting the diversion of HKMA's payment to Company 2 had assumed and usurped the rights of the owner (Company 1) in respect of the chose in action; that dishonest appropriation can occur despite the transfer being effected by the victim or its agent when the defendant's conduct has adversely interfered with the owner's rights (applying Gomez and Wong Cho-sum); and on the facts the elements of theft (appropriation, property belonging to another, dishonesty and intent to permanently deprive) were proved, so the conviction stands.

  • 13 Dec 2007

    HKSAR v. LI KWOK MING

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LI KWOK MING
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC5/2007

    Although the judge made numerous interventions, the majority were clarificatory or necessary given the technical nature of the evidence and did not deprive the applicant of a fair trial; the judge did not take judicial notice of extra‑evidential business practice but referred to procedures described in evidence; accordingly the appeal failed and the conviction and sentence stood.

  • 4 Jul 2007

    HKSAR v. HILL WONG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. HILL WONG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC329/2006

    The application is dismissed and the four-year sentence is upheld because, on the facts, the applicant played the central coordinating role in an elaborate confidence trick causing substantial prejudice, showed no remorse and there were no mitigating factors; the sentence was high but not manifestly excessive.

  • 18 Aug 2006

    HKSAR v. YANG XIANU

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YANG XIANU
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA28/2006

    The appeal was allowed because the magistrate must have relied on judicial notice of a particular deception modus operandi not placed before the court, that modus operandi was not shown to be of the kind the ordinary person would be presumed to know, and the magistrate failed to notify the defence that she might take judicial notice, depriving the defence of the opportunity to respond and rendering the conviction unsafe.

  • 2 Jun 2006

    HKSAR v. LEE SHING HUNG

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LEE SHING HUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA903/2005

    The appeal succeeds because the magistrate committed material errors in relying on the appellant's pre-trial silence and in failing to address an asserted alternative defence and by preventing adequate cross-examination of a key witness on CSR interpretation; those errors rendered the convictions unsafe. Nevertheless, because the evidential case was strong on the facts, the proper remedy is to quash the convictions and remit the matter for retrial.

  • 28 Apr 2006

    HKSAR v. YAU WAI HUNG AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    HKSAR v. YAU WAI HUNG AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC311/2005

    The Court held that s16(1)(b) is concerned with persuading, inciting or inducing by deception and does not require the deception to have actually succeeded; the defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations with intent to induce gambling completed the offence and the circumstantial and direct evidence sufficiently proved participation in the concerted fraudulent scheme, so the convictions were upheld.

  • 11 Jan 2006

    CHENG PO YAN, PHILIP v. HKSAR

    Citation
    CHENG PO YAN, PHILIP v. HKSAR
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC79/2005

    The court upheld the magistrate's finding of intentional concealment (and noted that recklessness would suffice under s.16A), concluded the application forms required full disclosure of prior liabilities, and determined that leaving disclosure fields blank amounted to a representation of nothing to disclose; therefore the application for leave to appeal raised no arguable ground of grave and substantial injustice and was dismissed.