Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraud by false representation

Legal area

Court

9 Dec 2025

香港特別行政區訴王志剛

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6149
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA488/2024

The accepted evidence (employment application P1, interview record P4 and employer's testimony) established that the appellant knowingly answered falsely about prior convictions to secure employment; the employer would not have hired anyone with convictions and relied on that answer; the appellant's claimed misunderstanding was implausible; therefore all elements of fraud were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The sentence of six months imprisonment suspended for 18 months and a compensation order for the wages obtained were appropriate given prior convictions and lack of remorse.
6 Aug 2025

香港特別行政區訴黎進銘

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3528
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA75/2024

The court accepted PW1 as credible and, considering the totality of evidence—P4's wording and signatures, P3 and prior conduct, the omission to identify any authority from the landowner, and the appellant's admission under caution—the only reasonable inference was that the appellant falsely represented he was authorised to sell the unit with intent to defraud, and the prosecution proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt; appeal dismissed.
27 Jun 2025

香港特別行政區訴姚寶雅

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4192
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA107/2024

The court found no evidence of serious incompetence by the trial lawyers. The appellant had repeatedly instructed not to involve her daughter; counsel reasonably assessed Ricci could not provide substantive supportive evidence and made a permissible strategic decision. The prosecution evidence and witness credibility were sufficient to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction was safe and the appeal is dismissed.
31 Jul 2024

香港特別行政區訴黃子潤

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2166
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA165/2024

The court, applying the re‑hearing standard, found the trial judge correctly assessed witness credibility and the documentary and bank evidence corroborated PW1; the evidence proved each element of the charged offences beyond reasonable doubt; the prosecution delay was explained and did not warrant reduction; the sentencing judge applied proper principles and the aggregate sentence of 34 months was not manifestly excessive, therefore convictions and sentences were affirmed.
21 Apr 2021

HKSAR v. KIU MEI LING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCA 78
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC110/2019

The court held there was no impermissible change of case: prosecutorial remarks and judicial discussion merely acknowledged the defence evidence and invited the jury to assess whether that evidence negated the statutory elements as particularised; the judge properly directed the jury on the elements of fraud including dishonesty and on the alternative 'reasonable grounds to believe' limb; a Kevin Brown direction was unnecessary because the alleged representations stood or fell together; the grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable and leave to appeal was refused.
28 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. CHEAH HANSON AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 603
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC134/2019

The judge's detailed factual findings and credibility assessments were supported by the evidence (flow of funds, false documents, emails and admissions); the appellants' grounds merely reargued denied contentions without establishing legal error or perversity in the trial judge's reasoning, so leave to appeal was refused and convictions and sentences stand.
8 Sept 2020

HKSAR v. CHAN HOK YU a.k.a. CHAN MAN CHAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCA 756
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC341/2019

Leave to appeal refused for the 2nd applicant (D3) because the judge's adoption of a four-year starting point was not manifestly excessive, the judge was entitled to treat D3 as equally culpable with co-offenders absent clear distinguishing features, and D3's clear record did not require a discount for such serious fraud. Leave to appeal granted for the 3rd applicant (D6) because there was a reasonably arguable case that her limited, single and unsuccessful participation, lack of benefit, remorse and rehabilitation evidence could constitute exceptional or at least individualised circumstances…
20 Mar 2019

香港特別行政區訴唐偉才

Citation

[2019] HKCA 349
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC140/2018

Given that reimbursement required hotel receipts, that company practice made clear receipts were necessary, and that the applicant's own travel records showed he was not in the Mainland on the relevant dates, the judge correctly found that the applicant knew the receipts were false and was therefore guilty of fraud; ambiguity about company explanations did not negate that knowledge and thus no arguable ground for appeal existed.
9 Feb 2018

HKSAR v. CHENG YIM FUNG, FLORA

Citation

[2018] HKCFA 5
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC35/2017

The application for leave was dismissed because the asserted grounds were not reasonably arguable: independent and overwhelming evidence supported the conviction; nondisclosure of remote stale convictions did not render the verdict unsafe; alleged reliance on contract expiry or other facts was unnecessary to uphold the Magistrate's findings; and the complaint of flagrant incompetence did not show deprivation of a fair trial.
31 May 2016

香港特別行政區訴廖勁怡

Citation

香港特別行政區訴廖勁怡
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC383/2015

Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part: the sentencing judge was entitled to treat use of false documents and other factors as aggravating but the statutory maximum (14 years) was an unduly harsh starting point; appropriate starting point for count 1 was 12 years, yielding an adjusted sentence of 8 years after plea credit; counts 2 and 3 sentences unchanged and structured to produce a total effective sentence of 9 years 4 months.