Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Offering advantage to an agent

Legal area

Court

17 Dec 2015

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LO KING FAT AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LO KING FAT AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR6/2014

The Court held the original sentences were manifestly inadequate given the seriousness, scale and roles of the defendants; it set higher appropriate starting points for each offence, applied limited discounts for clear record and conduct of defence and for positive character where warranted, and allowed a modest additional discount because the sentences were substantially increased on review, then quashed and substituted the original sentences with the new determinate terms and a consecutive element for the 2nd defendant.
23 Sept 2014

HKSAR v. LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH

Citation

HKSAR v. LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC283/2014

Bail pending appeal was granted because unresolved and central legal issues concerning the existence of principal/agent relationships created a reasonable likelihood of success on the first charge and because denying bail risked rendering the right of appeal illusory given the timing of release and appeal listing prospects.
16 May 2007

HKSAR v. CHOW KAM YUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHOW KAM YUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA250/2007

The court found that the magistrate was entitled to infer beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant knew the offer was unlawful from the totality of the evidence — admissions in interviews, his commercial background, the notebook entry corroborating the figures, and the private nature of the approach — and therefore upheld the conviction; however, on sentencing the court reduced the custodial term to about four and a half months, ordering the appellant's immediate release taking into account time served and remission.
24 Aug 2004

HKSAR v. WONG YUK SIM

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG YUK SIM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC497/2002

The appeal was dismissed because the judge was entitled to infer beyond reasonable doubt from documentary evidence, witness testimony and the applicant's own interview that the applicant knew PW1 was an Easyknit agent and offered half her commission (HK$525,000) to induce or reward facilitation of the transaction, and that doubts about PW1 were adequately addressed by corroborating evidence.
31 Jul 2003

HKSAR v. NG KAI MING

Citation

HKSAR v. NG KAI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC353/2002

The Court found that section 24 was not relied upon at trial, that defence counsel had effectively advised the applicant of the practical consequences of not testifying, and that the applicant was resolute in denying the charges; therefore the absence of specific reference to s24 did not materially affect his decision to plead not guilty or to refuse to give evidence and did not justify treating him as if he had pleaded guilty for sentencing purposes; accordingly the application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed.
11 Oct 2000

HKSAR v. CHAN CHONG CHI

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHONG CHI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA1233/1999

The magistrate erred by failing to properly assess and cumulatively weigh mitigation (midnight calls, prosecution delay) and by ignoring significant sentencing disparity with other participants in the same investigation; on appeal the sentences of three months imprisonment on each of three counts (concurrent) were suspended for 12 months.
31 Oct 1997

HKSAR v. MIYASHITA AKIRA

Citation

HKSAR v. MIYASHITA AKIRA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC624/1996

The Court held the trial judge did not descend into the arena or display bias; his interventions constituted proper judicial management to secure a fair trial; the witness evidence and documentary records sufficiently established the offences, so the application for leave to appeal against conviction was refused.
30 Aug 1991

THE QUEEN v. CHAN TIN SANG

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHAN TIN SANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA683/1991

The magistrate's careful and detailed findings addressed the credibility issues and legal burden; the prosecution established the offence beyond reasonable doubt; there was no demonstrated misdirection, bias or material defect in the trial process to render the conviction unsafe, therefore the appeal is dismissed.