Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Embezzlement

Legal area

Court

17 Feb 2017

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YEUNG CHUNG LUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. YEUNG CHUNG LUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP205/2013

The court concluded on the evidence (and absence of any explanation) that the 1st-3rd respondents committed false accounting, embezzlement and obstructive conduct amounting to defalcation, fraud and misfeasance engaging s214(1)(b),(c) and (d); therefore disqualification orders and a restitution order against the 1st respondent were appropriate, together with indemnity costs to the SFC.
5 Feb 2007

HYPERMAX LTD v. GARWIN ENTERPRISES LTD

Citation

HYPERMAX LTD v. GARWIN ENTERPRISES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2418/2006

Defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend because its affidavit evidence raised credible triable issues as to whether the monies were loans to the Defendant or shareholder contributions and whether the Plaintiff was a vehicle for fraud by Mr Ho and Ms Ng; those matters must be tried and summary judgment was refused; costs of the Order 14 application ordered to be costs in the cause.
11 Mar 1999

HKSAR v. TSE PING TONG

Citation

HKSAR v. TSE PING TONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC231/1998

The court held that Exh.P32 and the applicant's cautioned statements were voluntary and amounted to clear admissions that he had collected and misappropriated the funds totalling approximately HK$169,222.10; those admissions were sufficient to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt and no exceptional circumstances justified appellate interference; leave to appeal was dismissed.
14 Oct 1997

HKSAR v. YAMAGUCHI KATSUHIKO

Citation

HKSAR v. YAMAGUCHI KATSUHIKO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC145/1997

The trial judge adopted a 4-year starting point for multiple breaches of trust involving substantial sums, properly reduced it to 2 years and 8 months for the guilty plea and remorse, and having considered all mitigating factors the sentence was not manifestly excessive or wrong in principle; therefore leave to appeal is refused.
4 Sept 1996

R. v. LAI CHING YI, IVY

Citation

R. v. LAI CHING YI, IVY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC273/1996

The court held that the applicant's asserted compassionate grounds did not constitute good cause to entertain the out of time application and, in any event, the appeal had no prospect of success given the gravity of the embezzlement and minimal mitigation.
11 Dec 1970

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NG HUNG NAM

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NG HUNG NAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC311/1970

Following R. v. Gale, where a servant whose duty it is to receive and account for payments receives proceeds of cheques for his masters and then intentionally appropriates them, that conduct constitutes embezzlement of the proceeds; accordingly the District Judge's finding of no case to answer was wrong and is reversed and the trial must resume.
6 Sept 1969

CHEUNG YU SHING v. THE QUEEN

Citation

CHEUNG YU SHING v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC592/1969

Because the appellant was in extremely poor health and a long-standing drug addict, the court set aside the custodial sentence and substituted a conditional arrangement under Magistrates Ordinance s.36 requiring a $500 bond for good behaviour for 12 months, to be entered when he is discharged from hospital.
31 May 1969

SUEN CHEUNG TSAN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

SUEN CHEUNG TSAN v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC191/1969

Majority refused to interfere with the trial judge's sentence because he had properly considered and given due weight to mitigation, but the gravity of a series of 22 embezzlements totalling $134,000 over about a year warranted the sentence; absent demonstrable error the appellate court will not disturb sentencing discretion.