Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Unlicensed regulated activity

Legal area

Court

15 May 2025

證券及期貨事務監察委員會訴賴嘉怡

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3132
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA459/2024

On the whole of the evidence (victim's testimony, WhatsApp records and month‑end statements) the appellant represented to the victim that she was carrying on a securities trading business; applying Lee Yee Shing factors and the broad definition of 'business' the representation (holding out) was proved beyond reasonable doubt and no reasonable excuse was established; the conviction therefore stands and a two‑week immediate custodial sentence was proportionate in the circumstances given the deception, substantial loss and lack of remorse.
22 Oct 2021

證券及期貨事務監察委員會訴羅世鴻

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2937
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA249/2020

The contract (P7) objectively displayed that the company carried on the regulated activity of advising on corporate finance as defined in SFO Sch.5 Pt.2; the recorded interview was admissible because the appellant was clearly informed and understood the voluntary nature and rights associated with an interview under caution; the appellant, as the company's directing mind who negotiated and signed the contract, assisted/caused the company to display the regulated activity and, having no licence and offering no reasonable excuse, was criminally liable under s.390(1); therefore the conviction and…
2 Jun 2016

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA288/2015

Section 114(1)(b) of the SFO is a regulatory offence in respect of which the presumption of mens rea is displaced and liability is subject to the statutory defence of reasonable excuse; on the evidence the magistrate was entitled to find A1 held itself out as carrying on advisory business and A2, as directing mind of A1, was properly convicted under s390; credibility and contractual construction findings were open to the magistrate and are not overturned on appeal.
2 Jun 2016

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. C.L. MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA382/2014

Section 114(1)(b) is a regulatory offence in which the presumption of mens rea is displaced; the offence is constituted by the act of holding out unless a reasonable excuse is established; on the facts the agreements and conduct established A1 held itself out as carrying on corporate finance advisory services and A2, as directing mind of A1, was properly convicted under s390; the magistrate’s factual findings were not perverse and the appeals are dismissed.
11 May 2012

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. LO KAM CHUNG

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. LO KAM CHUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA36/2012

Given the absence of aggravating features, the appellant's youth, remorse, limited means and the sentencing precedents referred to, the court concluded there was no warrant for a fine exceeding $10,000 and reduced the fine to $10,000 while upholding the 80-hour community service order and the payment of investigation costs.
14 Mar 2012

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHAN CHUN WAI

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHAN CHUN WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA675/2011

Given that the 2nd defendant was the sole director and shareholder, the only contact with the website service provider and the recipient of access credentials, the court held that the irresistible inference from the circumstantial evidence was that he issued the advertisement and aided the 1st defendant to hold itself out as carrying on a regulated activity; absence of direct evidence or explanation did not prevent conviction where the circumstantial case proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt.
26 May 2010

NG CHIU MUI AND ANOTHER v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION

Citation

NG CHIU MUI AND ANOTHER v. SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV141/2009

The appeals were dismissed because the Court held the Tribunal correctly interpreted "actively markets" in the statutory context and was entitled to conclude CHI was actively marketing services to Hong Kong; the Tribunal properly conducted its supervisory review of the SFC's findings (intervening only if the regulator was plainly wrong or the material could not reasonably support the inferences) and its adjustments to penalties were within its permissible discretion.
21 Aug 2007

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. GROVER AKASHDEEP

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. GROVER AKASHDEEP
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA627/2007

There was no rational distinction between the appellant and Lara Rath: both acted in good faith, there was no financial loss and no extra benefit to the appellant; mitigating features (guilty plea, cooperation, absence of loss) warranted the same category of sentence as Rath; therefore the fine was set aside and a conditional discharge imposed.