Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fabrication of documents

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2023

MAK CHEE WAI 對 W.K. MAXY INDUSTRIES LTD 及另一人

Citation

[2023] HKDC 467
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3452/2020

The court found the plaintiff's key documentary evidence to be recently fabricated and rejected it; immigration and bank records and demeanour assessment supported defendants' account that HK$1,800,000 was earnest/deposit with a subsequent HK$600,000 refund. On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff failed to prove any loan or that the second defendant guaranteed one; therefore the claim fails and is dismissed.
14 Aug 2020

MR CHU KONG v. SUN MIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2022
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3605/2016

The court refused to stay the committal proceedings. Reason: the Court of Appeal had reinstated leave thereby establishing a prima facie basis; the admitted alteration of the emails presented a serious prima facie public wrong warranting progression; overlap with the substantive trial and the defendants' right to silence did not amount to a real risk of serious prejudice that justified a stay; the court may direct defendants to file affidavits (without depriving them of election to deploy them) as a case management measure. The court therefore dismissed the stay summons and ordered directions…
3 Jun 2003

HKSAR v. SUN GUI RONG

Citation

HKSAR v. SUN GUI RONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC504/2002

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the Court accepted the trial judge's finding that PW1 was a credible witness, that the receipt P9 and D3 were fabricated, and that the prosecution proved the applicant retained $580,000 of the company funds, so there was no lurking doubt to overturn the conviction.
26 May 2000

ASIA WIDE PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TSANG YUK KIU

Citation

ASIA WIDE PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TSANG YUK KIU
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA9500/1994

The objection was upheld and the question was disallowed because it invited argument and speculation beyond matters of fact by asking the witness to allege that document-makers fabricated entries to frame him, which the witness could not factually know; the question was therefore improper and disproportionate to the issues of relevance.

Hong Kong Case Law

MAK CHEE WAI 對 W.K. MAXY INDUSTRIES LTD 及另一人

MR CHU KONG v. SUN MIN AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. SUN GUI RONG

ASIA WIDE PROPERTIES LTD. AND ANOTHER v. TSANG YUK KIU