19 Nov 2021
香港特別行政區 訴 黃淑珍及另一人
- Citation
- [2021] HKCA 1736
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACC14/2020
On the facts the Court of Appeal acquitted D1 because the trial judge's inferences that she must have known of D2's reportable housing benefit were inadequately founded and alternative explanations (including private communications) were not excluded; D2's appeal was dismissed because objective and subjective elements of dishonesty were established: employer documents, payroll history and D2's admissions showed the payments were housing benefits and he knew the PTA double‑benefit rule and acted dishonestly to procure PTA, intending to deceive the Treasury and causing loss to the Government.