Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fraudulent conversion

Legal area

Court

16 Jun 1981

PAO YUEN TUNG HSING YIEH CO LTD v. PAO HSING COTTON MILL LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

PAO YUEN TUNG HSING YIEH CO LTD v. PAO HSING COTTON MILL LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA765/1981

The court refused defendants' strike-out applications based on laches and limitation because it was not plain and obvious that those defences must succeed given possible factual explanations (notably political constraints) and issues of discovery; however the Statement of Claim against the 1st Defendant was struck out because the pleaded facts did not, as a matter of law, establish an express or resulting trust in the company's assets nor justified piercing the corporate veil to grant the relief sought.
20 Jul 1973

WIDE WORLD EXPORTS LTD v. HENRY VICTOR ARDY

Citation

WIDE WORLD EXPORTS LTD v. HENRY VICTOR ARDY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2835/1971

On the balance of probabilities the documents (three minutes, notice and regulations) were prepared and used by the defendant without Thornton's approval; the defendant did not act in good faith in drawing and appropriating company funds or in purporting to grant himself salary/bonuses; therefore defendant liable to repay specified sums; stay of execution refused though limited temporary delay and conditions were imposed; costs awarded to plaintiff and to be taxed on a common fund basis.
3 Jul 1968

SHENG DIN KOW v. THE QUEEN

Citation

SHENG DIN KOW v. THE QUEEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC226/1968

The magistrate's review and conviction were lawful: the evidence established entrustment and fraudulent intention to convert specific identified subscription monies, and there was no impermissible variance between the charge and the evidence requiring amendment under s.27(2); accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
2 Oct 1947

A. B. PALMER v. R.

Citation

A. B. PALMER v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC19/1947

The appellate court concluded that, on the admitted documentary evidence and legitimate inferences (notably the $3,000 book entry and the sending and return of $10,000 to the ship's master), the Magistrate's rejection of the accused's explanations was unreasonable and left a reasonable doubt as to fraudulent intent; accordingly the conviction could not stand and the appeal was allowed.

Hong Kong Case Law

PAO YUEN TUNG HSING YIEH CO LTD v. PAO HSING COTTON MILL LTD AND OTHERS

WIDE WORLD EXPORTS LTD v. HENRY VICTOR ARDY

SHENG DIN KOW v. THE QUEEN

A. B. PALMER v. R.