Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Loan sharking

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2008

HKSAR v. LAU SUI HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU SUI HING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC111/2008

The trial judge's rejection of the applicants' account‑lending defence was justified on credibility grounds and, given the undisputed transaction records showing large, rapid deposits and withdrawals linked to loan‑sharking, the only reasonable and irresistible inference was that the applicants dealt with monies they knew or had reason to believe were proceeds of an indictable offence; convictions therefore stand.
2 Jul 2004

HKSAR v. CHEUNG WING LAM

Citation

HKSAR v. CHEUNG WING LAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC32/2004

The Court held the global sentence of twenty-seven months was manifestly excessive in the circumstances; having weighed aggravating and mitigating features and applied the totality principle, the correct overall term is eighteen months imprisonment, and the confiscation order under Cap.455 stands.
2 Nov 1999

HKSAR v. WAN CHI WAI

Citation

HKSAR v. WAN CHI WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC105/1999

Given the judge's findings that the applicant had a very significant role in a more widespread and organised loansharking operation charging over 1000% p.a., with records and links to accomplices, prior offending and no remorse, the Court of Appeal held the aggregate sentence of 3 years was not manifestly excessive and the application to appeal sentence was dismissed.
1 May 1997

R. v. LO WAI KEUNG and Others

Citation

R. v. LO WAI KEUNG and Others
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC159/1996

The Court held that the sentencing judge did not err: he assessed the appropriate sentence as if there were no previous convictions, the remark about absence of mitigating circumstances related to facts of the offences, and a four‑year sentence for the blackmail offences (with concurrent operation) together with the assault sentences produced an overall term of four years and one month which was appropriate and not manifestly excessive; the application for leave to appeal was refused.
22 Apr 1997

R. v. CHOI CHI HO

Citation

R. v. CHOI CHI HO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC161/1996

The application for leave to appeal against sentence out of time is dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate any adequate reason to extend time and failed to show any real prospect of a reduction in sentence; accordingly leave was refused.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. LAU SUI HING AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. CHEUNG WING LAM

HKSAR v. WAN CHI WAI

R. v. LO WAI KEUNG and Others

R. v. CHOI CHI HO