Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Evading liability by deception

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2003

HKSAR v. CHAN TSZ TAK

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN TSZ TAK
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC121/2002

The Court held the sentence was not manifestly excessive: the judge permissibly assessed the overall criminality and adopted an overall starting point for closely connected dishonest conduct, applied lawful and adequate discounts for guilty pleas and restitution, and the omission to state a starting point for one charge did not warrant interference with the concurrent sentence imposed.
9 Nov 2000

HKSAR v. GOH SWEE YAN ANGELINA

Citation

HKSAR v. GOH SWEE YAN ANGELINA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC491/1999

Substituting a conviction for evading a liability by deception did not change the appropriate sentence; the court is entitled to take into account the consequences of the offending (including ultimate loss) when sentencing even if loss is not an element of the offence; the two year concurrent sentences were not manifestly excessive and are upheld.
2 Feb 2000

HKSAR v. FOO KING YIN

Citation

HKSAR v. FOO KING YIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC387/1999

The court held that any misapprehension as to peripheral dates was immaterial in the context of overwhelming cumulative evidence that the applicant knew the cheques would not be met and intended they should not be met; leave to entertain the out-of-time application was permitted due to a solicitor technical error but the substantive appeal lacked merit and was dismissed; costs awarded to respondent.
15 Jan 1999

HKSAR v. CHENG MAN CHEUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHENG MAN CHEUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC334/1998

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and there was no arguable merit that the four‑year concurrent sentences were inappropriate given the finding of a sophisticated long‑firm fraud involving goods valued at HKD 557,000; accordingly the original conviction and sentence stand and custodial credit was limited.
10 Sept 1997

HKSAR v. LAW YUEN LING

Citation

HKSAR v. LAW YUEN LING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA723/1997

The magistrate, having seen the witnesses and conducted a comprehensive review of the evidence, permissibly rejected the appellant's explanations and accepted PW3's account; there was sufficient evidence to support the convictions and no basis for appellate interference, so the appeal is dismissed.
20 Feb 1997

R. v. CHEUNG YIU FAI

Citation

R. v. CHEUNG YIU FAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC527/1996

On the facts as found by the trial judge — including the back‑dating and instruction to delay presentation of the cheque, its dishonour and stoppage, disappearance of the goods and a false company address — the applicant was proved to have acted dishonestly to induce delivery of the goods beyond reasonable doubt; the trial judge was properly directed on the law and the conviction is upheld.
29 Nov 1996

THE QUEEN v. MA CHAK-KAI

Citation

THE QUEEN v. MA CHAK-KAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC777/1995

Because the trial judge's comments indicated she may have treated significant parts of the applicant's untested evidence as irrelevant rather than as matters going to weight, and because the point was not clarified or the witnesses recalled, the conviction could not be regarded as safe; the Court allowed the appeal and quashed the convictions.
4 Aug 1992

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MING

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC141/1992

The Court held the conduct was deliberate and carefully executed deception involving dishonoured cheques totalling about $69,000 over a short period; the sentencing judge's starting point and discount for guilty pleas were appropriate and the concurrent sentences of 14 months were not excessive, so leave to appeal was refused.
6 Sept 1989

THE QUEEN v. HUNG KWONG PUI AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. HUNG KWONG PUI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC97/1989

Leave to appeal against conviction and sentence refused because the trial judge's adverse credibility findings and conclusion that the statutory presumption under s.24(6)(a) was not rebutted were reasonably open on the evidence, and the three year concurrent custodial sentence for 15 offences involving approximately $1.5 million over five months was not excessive.
12 May 1989

THE QUEEN v. CHAN SHING YAU ALAN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN SHING YAU ALAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC473/1988

The trial judge correctly applied s29(6) Cap.210, the applicant failed to rebut the statutory presumption on the balance of probabilities, and there was abundant admissible evidence to infer dishonesty; accordingly leave to appeal was properly refused.