Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Documentary fraud

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2006

NEC HONG KONG LTD v. THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA AND ANOTHER

Citation

NEC HONG KONG LTD v. THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL60/2000

The court found on the balance of probabilities that NEC delivered the goods and that the cargo receipts were genuine; the alterations were authorised by Fortune System and adequately authenticated; the excision of an 's' was immaterial; there was no documentary fraud; ICBC's contention of discrepancy failed and its rejection was invalid; judgment entered for NEC against ICBC for US$1,038,000 plus interest and costs; Gaoming's counterclaim against NEC dismissed.
9 Jul 2002

HKSAR v. YAO WILLIAM

Citation

HKSAR v. YAO WILLIAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC246/2001

The court dismissed the application because the trial judge had correctly identified and applied the relevant sentencing factors; the Applicant was a willing participant who played an important role in handling funds that exposed banks to substantial risk via fraudulent letters of credit, and the judge was entitled to adopt the sentence imposed.
1 Dec 1995

R. v. CHAN KAM-CHUEN

Citation

R. v. CHAN KAM-CHUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC545/1995

Because the judge failed to conduct a Newton inquiry in the face of credible mitigation, the Court of Appeal must assess and accept the mitigation for sentencing purposes; applying that mitigation the proper starting point is reduced to 3 years, full credit for early plea reduces to 2 years, and further mitigation reduces the sentence to 18 months imprisonment.
16 Oct 1986

TRISHUL (U.K.) LTD. v. WINNIE FUNG TONG t/a WINDA PRODUCT

Citation

TRISHUL (U.K.) LTD. v. WINNIE FUNG TONG t/a WINDA PRODUCT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA14450/1983

Plaintiff failed to prove fraud by clear and cogent evidence; discrepancy in AWB dates alone did not establish fraudulent misrepresentation or that the instrument was corrupted at its heart; even if date altered, such an alteration would be collateral and would not entitle plaintiff to rights independent of the underlying sale; claim dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

NEC HONG KONG LTD v. THE INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL BANK OF CHINA AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. YAO WILLIAM

R. v. CHAN KAM-CHUEN

TRISHUL (U.K.) LTD. v. WINNIE FUNG TONG t/a WINDA PRODUCT