Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Illegal gambling

Legal area

Court

14 Jun 2024

香港特別行政區訴黃振展

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2180
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA28/2023

The prosecution proved entry under s23 and discovery of gambling equipment (baccarat table and 12 bags of chips) so the premises was properly presumed a gambling house under s19(1)(c); the appellant was found in that premises and absent any credible contrary evidence the s19(2) presumption applied that he had gambled; the magistrate properly rejected the appellant's inconsistent and implausible account and therefore the conviction was safe and affirmed.
30 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴鍾承泰

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2072
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA188/2023

Appellant's in-court plea and caution statement were clear, voluntary and unambiguous; the admitted facts constituted the offence; appellant failed to demonstrate coercion, ambiguity or other legal defects in the plea or to produce new evidence of such force between plea and sentence; on re-hearing the evidence (including police observation and seized items) sufficed to support conviction beyond reasonable doubt; appeal is dismissed and original conviction and sentence are upheld.
21 May 2024

香港特別行政區訴罗梅先及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1892
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA400/2022

Police were obstructed entering the premises so s19(3) presumption applied; appellants failed to adduce rebuttal evidence; once the court was satisfied under s26 that the money was used for or in connection with illegal gambling the magistrate was obliged to order forfeiture; on rehearing the High Court found no error and upheld the forfeiture orders and fines.
4 Jul 2022

香港特別行政區訴玉炳健及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1755
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA97/2020

Trial judge correctly admitted the interview as voluntary, reasonably rejected defendants' exculpatory accounts after assessing credibility and circumstantial evidence (seized cards, cash, conduct of exchanger, discrepancies at cashier), and properly inferred first appellant's knowledge and role; second appellant failed to produce credible evidence under s19(3) to rebut prosecution case; therefore convictions and the first appellant's immediate six‑week sentence were lawful and appropriate.
22 Aug 2016

HKSAR v. LIN KEI TAT

Citation

HKSAR v. LIN KEI TAT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC11/2013

The application for a certificate was dismissed because the questions raised lacked merit: the law is settled that 'proceeds of crime' is not confined to reward and, on the facts, bets received by the appellant from illegal bookmaking constituted proceeds of crime and were liable to confiscation under OSCO.
28 Jan 2004

HKSAR v. WONG HING LAM

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG HING LAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA69/2004

The Court held the Magistrate did not err in principle or impose an excessive sentence: the operation was substantial and sophisticated, the appellant's relevant prior convictions warranted a starting point of six months reduced to four months because a fine was to be imposed and further reduced to three months for the guilty plea; the combination of imprisonment and fine was not a prohibited double punishment, and the appeal was dismissed.
18 Feb 2000

HKSAR v. TSANG LING YIM AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. TSANG LING YIM AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1102/1999

The court held that voluntary withdrawal can attract a modest reduction in sentence and allowed limited reductions for the 1st and 3rd appellants; statements in mitigation that rendered the 2nd appellant's plea equivocal meant his plea was a nullity so his conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter remitted for trial; assistants with lesser roles could be dealt with by suspension of sentence. The magistrate's general approach to custody for large-scale operations was upheld but specific mitigation required adjustment for certain appellants.
1 Oct 1996

R. v. CHEUNG WAI HING and Others

Citation

R. v. CHEUNG WAI HING and Others
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA750/1995

The Magistrate correctly found, on the evidence of membership fees, room rent and open provision of mahjong facilities, that the premises operated as a commercial gambling establishment and were not private; therefore the social occasion defence under s.3(2) did not apply, the meal constituted 'winnings' under the definitions, section 6 was not inconsistent with the Bill of Rights as held in authority, and the convictions were properly sustained.
27 Nov 1992

THE QUEEN v. WONG SUEN CHEONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. WONG SUEN CHEONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA682/1992

The High Court allowed the appeals in part and held that while large-scale operators of illegal gambling merit custodial sentences, magistrates must consider suspending those sentences—particularly where defendants have pleaded guilty and have clear or minor records—and accordingly varied the sentences in MA682/92 to suspended terms with fines.
19 Aug 1985

THE QUEEN v. YAU MAN KIT

Citation

THE QUEEN v. YAU MAN KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA635/1985

There were no peculiarly aggravating circumstances to justify a custodial sentence for the appellant under s.6; accordingly the custodial sentence was wrong in principle and must be set aside while the fine is left intact.