Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use of false instrument

Legal area

Court

7 Mar 2025

HKSAR v. GURUNG, DINESH

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 942
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA209/2024

On the transcripts and exhibits the appellate court was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that PW2 did not sign the sponsor declaration, there was no authorisation letter, the appellant declared no change in matrimonial relationship despite divorce proceedings and separation, and the only reasonable inference is that the appellant personally submitted and used the false instrument and made the false statement; therefore the magistrate's convictions were upheld.
4 Nov 2024

HKSAR v. AHMED, JUNAD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2917
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA209/2023

The appellate court, conducting a rehearing, accepted the magistrate’s credibility findings and drew an irresistible inference from the uncontradicted documentary and officer evidence that the appellant submitted false declarations and used a forged sponsor form; fresh evidence was refused for lack of reasonable explanation for non-production at trial; therefore the convictions on all three charges were safe and must be upheld.
25 Jan 2022

HKSAR v. CHAN KA YIN

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA353/2021

The Magistrate correctly applied established authorities and sentencing principles that equate online use of a falsified HKID with in-person presentation; given the deliberate premeditated deception to obtain a bank gift and the appellant's substantial relevant criminal record, the 15 months imprisonment sentence was appropriate and should be upheld.
21 Jul 2017

HKSAR v. ALAM PARVEZ

Citation

HKSAR v. ALAM PARVEZ
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA281/2017

The High Court held the magistrate correctly applied established sentencing principles and authorities, including treating use of a photocopy of a forged identity card as equally culpable to a forged identity card, correctly set starting points, applied a one‑third reduction for guilty plea, imposed concurrent sentences and therefore there was no basis to interfere with the sentence.
17 Jun 2016

HKSAR v. LI KUNWEI

Citation

HKSAR v. LI KUNWEI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC47/2016

The Court refused leave because the judge's adoption of a starting point of 3 years 3 months for the offences, with enhancement for the international element and a one-third reduction for plea to produce concurrent terms of 2 years 2 months, was within established authorities and not open to reasonable challenge; no arguable ground for appeal on sentence existed.
20 Nov 2015

HKSAR v. THANASEGARAN ARUMUGAM

Citation

HKSAR v. THANASEGARAN ARUMUGAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC314/2014

The court refused to certify any points of law under s32(2) because the applicant gave no satisfactory explanation for the four month delay and the issues raised had been addressed in prior judgments and lacked merit; consequently the Notice of Motion was dismissed and no certificate issued.
30 Oct 2015

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC233/2013

The Court held that (1) the judge did not err in admitting the applicant’s statements and evidence from the probate proceedings as 'mixed' statements and admissible background/admissions; (2) the trial judge's directions to the jury, including the two‑stage qualification (Lucas style) on lies and reminders on burden and standard of proof, were adequate and did not render the convictions unsafe; (3) the proposed fresh evidence under s83V was refused as unreliable, late or of limited probative effect and would not afford grounds to allow the appeal; and (4) sentencing was within proper exercise…
7 May 2015

HKSAR v. THANASEGARAN ARUMUGAM

Citation

HKSAR v. THANASEGARAN ARUMUGAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC314/2014

Given the number of forged cards, the potential loss and the applicant's travel to Hong Kong for the specific purpose of using the cards, the offences constituted a medium size operation with an international element; the starting point of 5 years was appropriate, the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive, the renewed application was without merit and must be refused, and pursuant to s.83W three months of time in custody pending the renewal shall not be reckoned as part of the sentence.
5 Aug 2014

HKSAR v. KHUMALO PAULOS

Citation

HKSAR v. KHUMALO PAULOS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC176/2014

The Court found no error in the trial judge's factual analysis or application of legal principles; the inference that the applicant was part of a wider organisation was reasonable, the starting point adopted was within the appropriate range and the one-third guilty plea discount was correctly applied, so leave to appeal was dismissed.
9 Jul 2014

香港特別行政區訴鄧偉明

Citation

香港特別行政區訴鄧偉明
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC54/2014

The bail application was dismissed because the applicant failed to show sufficient grounds for an appeal on the second group of offences; any shortcomings in the trial judge's treatment of the first group did not suffice to meet the threshold for bail, and the prosecutorial error affected only one of four documents in the second group while the others were lawfully charged.