Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Dishonesty (ghosh test)

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2025

HKSAR v. CHAN CHI CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1150
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC425/2015

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed convictions of the 2nd to 12th applicants because the cumulative evidence established a real and substantial conflict of interest and flagrant incompetence by their joint legal team that deprived the applicants of a fair trial; the court rejected the constitutional challenge under BL40 as unavailing but did not need to decide it further given the procedural unfairness finding.
16 May 2025

HKSAR v. MA CHUN KIT

Citation

[2025] HKCA 451
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC224/2020

The Court held that the trial judge's summing-up, read in context, did not produce an unfair trial because the focus and particulars of the charges were on appropriation of Hyundai HK's choses in action by unauthorised transfers, the alleged references to post-transfer dealings were evidential of dishonesty rather than a separate basis of liability, and the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming; Ghosh remains the law in Hong Kong and there was no legal requirement to expand the objective limb to include the defendant's beliefs such that a material miscarriage occurred; accordingly t…
7 Mar 2024

HKSAR v. MA CHUN KIT

Citation

[2024] HKCA 191
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC224/2020

Leave to appeal was granted only on Ground 1 because there was a reasonably arguable issue whether the judge, by her summing-up remarks, provided an alternative basis of appropriation (later assumption of rights) potentially outside the indictment and not canvassed with the parties; Grounds 2 and 3 were refused as not reasonably arguable because the alleged Ghosh issue was mixed law and fact tied to the applicant's untested state of mind and the evidence, and the trial judge had given a full Mushtaq direction and the summation must be read as a whole so no material irregularity arose regardin…
24 Nov 2020

HKSAR v. WONG SHEE MENG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2899
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA46/2019

The magistrate's description of the case as a "rebuttal case" did not displace the prosecution's burden; on the facts (invoices, communications, ongoing non-payment and opportunity to pay) the magistrate correctly found dishonesty under the Ghosh test and the conviction was safe, so the appeal is dismissed.
8 Apr 2020

HKSAR v. CHUI SING CHI GRACE

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 581
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA590/2018

The Court upheld the magistrate's findings that by using Centre forms and staff to process tests for non-eligible relatives the appellant made an implied misrepresentation by conduct, acted dishonestly with an improper secondary motive, and her sustained misuse of her official position over 12 years amounted to serious misconduct in public office; conviction and sentence were therefore safe and were upheld.
6 Aug 2018

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHENG KA YEE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1809
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA466/2017

The appeal is dismissed because the actus reus of s161(1)(c) could not be proved: photographing and transmitting questions on respondents' own smartphones and D3's authorized use of a school desktop did not amount to unauthorized extraction or access to a computer as required by Li Man Wai; moreover the magistrate's credibility and dishonesty findings were not perverse and did not merit appellate interference.
16 May 2018

HKSAR v. AU YEUNG KA MAN YUNIKO

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 23
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC62/2017

Section 161(1)(c) criminalises obtaining access to a computer with a view to dishonest gain broadly including acquisition of information (eg home addresses); there is no requirement that the intended gain be for the purpose of committing fraud or another separate offence; motive does not alter the statutory meaning of dishonest gain; the applicant's factual and credibility-based complaints did not raise a reasonably arguable question of law and leave to appeal was refused.
19 May 2017

HKSAR v. LAI KA YIN

Citation

HKSAR v. LAI KA YIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA294/2016

The court upheld conviction because the undisclosed cheque deposits, shown by bank records and withdrawals and their timing relative to review interviews, became appellant's assets and supported an irresistible inference of concealment and intent to defraud; the magistrate did not misapply burden or the Ghosh test. On sentence, having weighed aggravating and mitigating factors, the court substituted a suspended term: original 4 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years.
19 Jan 2017

HKSAR v. NANIK DAYARAM

Citation

HKSAR v. NANIK DAYARAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC274/2015

Although some interventions by the trial judge were unwarranted (notably during D2's evidence) and certain directions could have been more precise, the interventions and any technical misdirections (including limited reference to post‑offence events in the Ghosh second limb) did not render the trial unfair or the convictions unsafe; the HSBC credit proposal was admissible under s.20 as a banker’s record and the jury had been directed to consider counts and defendants separately; accordingly leave was granted only on the judicial intervention ground but the appeals were dismissed on the merits.
5 Sept 2016

HKSAR v. NANIK DAYARAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. NANIK DAYARAM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC274/2015

Although most grounds of appeal were unlikely to succeed, the trial judge’s interventions during trial raised a serious and arguable ground regarding fairness; that arguable ground sufficed to discharge the applicants’ burden on the bail application and justify granting bail pending appeal.