Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use of false instruments

Legal area

Court

15 Jul 2016

HKSAR v. WU PING YANG, JIMMY

Citation

HKSAR v. WU PING YANG, JIMMY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC293/2014

The Court refused to receive the proposed fresh evidence because the documents were not reasonably credible and were inconsistent with the accepted facts; there was no overriding factor to render convictions based on unequivocal late guilty pleas unsafe, so leave to appeal against conviction out of time was refused; the sentencing starting point and 3-month reduction were within the appropriate range and leave to appeal against sentence was refused; the Court ordered that two months of custody spent pending the leave applications not count towards the sentences (loss of time).
31 Dec 2015

HKSAR v. WU PING YANG, JIMMY

Citation

HKSAR v. WU PING YANG, JIMMY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC293/2014

Leave to appeal against conviction out of time and leave to appeal against sentence were refused because the applicant failed to show any reasonably arguable ground that his guilty plea was null or involuntary, provided no satisfactory explanation for not adducing fresh evidence at trial nor demonstrated its likely credibility, and the sentencing judge's assessment (including a reduced discount for a late plea) was not wrong in principle or manifestly excessive.
23 Apr 2013

HKSAR v. LI TIANBAO AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LI TIANBAO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC89/2012

The convictions were upheld because the trial judge was entitled to accept the victim's account; forged documents consistent with that account were found in Li's possession; Lam's impersonation, pre-arranged appearance at the bank and role in producing the forged bank statement enabled a reasonable inference that he knowingly participated in the conspiracy; the totality of evidence proved both conspiracy to defraud and use of false instruments beyond reasonable doubt.
6 Mar 2013

HKSAR v. BRIAN ALFRED HALL

Citation

HKSAR v. BRIAN ALFRED HALL
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC18/2012

The Court upheld the convictions because the evidence that the documents were forged and that Hall knowingly used them to pervert the course of justice was overwhelming and the trial judge applied the correct legal standards; the sentencing judge erred in law by misstating the maximum penalty and by improperly treating distinct offences as intermingled for concurrency, so the Court substituted longer individual sentences and adjusted for totality to the District Court's jurisdictional limit, producing a new aggregate sentence of six years and nine months' imprisonment.
19 Feb 2013

香港特別行政區訴黃斌

Citation

香港特別行政區訴黃斌
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC525/2011

The Court upheld the trial judge's factual finding that the applicant knew or must have believed the time demand drafts were false given the suspicious circumstances (size of sums, unknown investor, errors on the instruments, sequence of events) and that delivery of forged drafts to banks evidenced intent to induce acceptance; accordingly convictions on counts 1 and 2 were upheld. However on the facts the conduct charged in count 3 overlapped with count 1 such that count 3 involved duplicative prosecution for the same conspiratorial enterprise; conviction and sentence on count 3 were therefor…
24 Jul 2009

HKSAR v. LIM BAN HOONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. LIM BAN HOONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC465/2007

The Court refused leave to appeal sentence, holding that the improbability of success did not constitute a mitigating factor because the false historic documents could realistically have placed the bank in difficulty; given the applicant was the mastermind of an elaborate, aggressively pursued scheme the judge was entitled to adopt a starting point slightly above three years and the 39 month sentence was appropriate.
6 May 2009

HKSAR v. WONG CHOR WO

Citation

HKSAR v. WONG CHOR WO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC314/2006

The trial judge's imposition of a global sentence was wrong in principle; on re-sentencing the court imposed appropriate individual sentences for each count in line with established bands and sentencing principles, ordered the sentences to run concurrently to reflect totality, and held that the overall term of six years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive, dismissing the application for leave to appeal against sentence.
20 Nov 2007

HKSAR v. CHIU KA KIN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHIU KA KIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC158/2007

Leave to appeal out of time was refused because the applicant's explanation for the year‑long delay was inadequate and, on the merits, the 16‑month sentence (within an overall 36‑month sentence) was not manifestly excessive given the facts, irrecoverable loss and the applicant's poor record.
3 Jul 2006

HKSAR v. NG JIT MAN

Citation

HKSAR v. NG JIT MAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC125/2005

The Court held that the bank official's testimony about BNI/UBS practices and familiarity with signatures was admissible and sufficiently probative; omissions such as not calling original signatories or producing specimen documents went to weight not admissibility; adverse inferences from the applicant's failure to testify were properly drawn on facts peculiarly within his knowledge; acquittal on an offence requiring proof of intention to use was consistent with conviction for mere possession; consequently convictions and sentence were upheld.
29 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. ZHOU JIANGUO AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. ZHOU JIANGUO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC480/2005

The Court found the trial judge's individual starting points for the credit‑card offences and passports were excessive on the facts; it applied fresh starting points (3 years per card‑related offence reduced to 2 years after plea, 12 months for passports after plea) and adjusted concurrency/consecutive ordering under the totality principle to reduce D2's aggregate sentence from 5 to 4 years and D1's aggregate sentence by six months to 2 years.