5 Jul 2013
The application for certification was refused because the two contested points of law were not engaged on the facts of the case; given the court's factual finding that Pau knowingly authorised a prospectus containing an untrue statement, determination of whether s.342F is strict liability or whether the honest and reasonable belief defence applies was unnecessary and academic.
17 Apr 2013
On the facts the Court of Appeal found no merit in challenges to the trial judge’s factual and credibility assessments: the judge was entitled to accept Iris's core account notwithstanding inconsistencies and ICAC procedures, corroboration existed, and documentary and circumstantial evidence supported findings that Chiang orchestrated dishonest schemes, Hussain participated in drafting and concealing false option grants and made misrepresentations to regulators, and Pau knowingly arranged for shares to be held in another's name and authorised a prospectus containing untrue statements; therefo…