Commercial Crime

 DCCC 433/2024, CHAN (D3): represented the 3rd Defendant in a fraud case involving a total sum of approximately HKD 17,000,000 concerning the purported sale of government land. The prosecution alleged that all three defendants (1st to 3rd Defendant jointly charged) conspired to defraud the victim by misrepresenting the nature of the transaction. The defence centred on establishing that the victim was fully aware that the transaction involved the purchase of a license of land, not the proprietary interest of the land. On the 4th day of the trial, Alan strategically proposed to the Prosecution that the charge against the 3rd Defendant be withdrawn. The Learned Judge ultimately ruled that there was no case to answer and acquitted the 3rd Defendant for one count of fraud after 4 days of a scheduled 10-day trial.

DCCC 729/2023, KAN and POON (D3 and D4): represented the 3rd and 4th Defendant in a 30-day money laundering trial involving a total sum of approximately HKD 50,000,000. The prosecution alleged that the 3rd and 4th Defendant’s source of income was inconsistent with the cash deposit in their bank accounts. Given that this was a non-predicate offence case with no victim identified, coupled with the defence witnesses’ evidence to support the contention that the 4th Defendant was, at the material time, operating several legitimate businesses in Hong Kong and Macau. The Learned Judge concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the 3rd and 4th Defendant had reasonable grounds to believe their businesses were illegitimate; or that they were dealing with the properties related to proceeds of crime. As such, both defendants were acquitted of 7 counts of money laundering.

 HKSAR v. Lam: acted for the Client facing two counts of money laundering. An argument was advanced that, under caution, the officer had failed to give a reasonable opportunity for the Client to explain the money laundering allegations he was facing. During the trial, Alan successfully persuaded the Court that the Client, as a businessman, had a reasonable belief that the monies he received from his client were proceeds of lawful trading. The Client was acquitted on both charges.

HKSAR v. Li: acted for the Client facing two counts of money laundering of approximately HK$1,000,000. An argument was advanced about whether s. 25A(2)(b)(i) to (iii) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance Cap 455 are applicable if the accused had disclosed the proceeds in his witness statement (Pol. 154). The Client was acquitted of both charges.

Alan has often been instructed to give legal advice on matters related to money laundering, allegations under the Prevention and Bribery Ordinance and/or offences related to fraud and/or conspiracy to defraud.

 Theft

 HKSAR v. Tung: acted for a proprietor of a recycling business charged with one count of theft. Alan successfully established that the Defendant was handling abandoned property, emphasising the surrounding circumstances of the case: the four large printing presses were outdated, covered in dust, and significantly depreciated; no markings or claims of ownership were present; and the items had been left unattended in the corridor for an extended period. Crucially, upon arrest, the Defendant informed the police under caution that he was merely disposing of waste that had been abandoned for nine days. The Learned Magistrate accepted these arguments, leading to the Defendant’s acquittal.

 HKSAR v. Lai: acted for the Client who was a marine time officer suffering from severe depression disorder. During the trial, Alan managed to persuade the Court to accept that at the alleged material time, the Defendant had forgotten to take her medication while experiencing severe depression episodes. The Learned Magistrate, having heard the evidence of the Defendant and the expert summonsed by the Defence, accepted that it was genuinely possible that the Defendant could have been distracted, for which her memory could have been impaired by her medical condition at the alleged material time. The charge was therefore acquitted.

 HKSAR v. Tsui: the Client was a civil servant with chronic mixed anxiety disorder and obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). At trial, Alan urged the Court to evaluate the supermarket CCTV footage, the client’s testimony, and expert psychiatric evidence to demonstrate that his behaviour in the supermarket was consistent with his diagnosis. The expert testified that such conditions could manifest in memory impairment, anxiety, and repetitive actions. The Learned Magistrate concluded there was a reasonable likelihood that the Client’s medical condition impaired his judgment at the material time, causing him to forget payment for items taken from a display rack. The Client was acquitted.

Industrial Summonses, Construction Safety

 HKSAR v. Ming Hing Waterworks Engineering Company Limited & Others (12 summonses altogether): acted for D1 and D3 in a four-day trial concerning a worker who entered into a pipeline, which is regarded as a confined space under the meaning of the law, without the permission of the site agent. During the trial, Alan managed to establish that the pipeline work had been assigned to a contractor who had not been charged. Moreover, according to the scope of work under the subcontract, the worker in question had never been expected to work in the pipelines at all, rendering him a trespasser of the confined space. This resulted in the full acquittal of D1 and D3 on the second day of the trial.

 HKSAR v. Ming Hing Waterworks Engineering Company Limited & others (10 summonses altogether): acted as the sole advocate for the joint venture and subcontractor for a three-day trial. Following Alan’s cross-examination of the primary witness, the prosecution finally noticed that the evidence provided by their primary witness was giving unfavourable evidence against the prosecution’s case. That said, the Prosecution then applied and requested that the primary witness be regarded as a hostile witness. Ultimately, the prosecution’s application was rejected on the basis that the Learned Magistrate agreed with the Defence’s position that the evidence that had been given by the primary witness was merely unfavourable, rather than hostile. The Prosecution’s case had thus completely collapsed, and thus, all 10 summonses were then acquitted.

HKSAR v. Ming Hing Waterworks Engineering Company Limited (D1) and Others (D2): acted as the sole advocate for the main contractor D1. Arguments were advanced, and the Court accepted that reasonably adequate steps had been taken by D1 at the material time to safeguard the workers’ safety at the construction site in question. D1 was acquitted.

 HKSAR v. Ming Hing Waterworks Engineering Company Limited (D1) and Others (D2): acted as the sole advocate for the main contractor D1. An argument was advanced as to the appropriate time frame for displaying Form 4 at the construction site. Both D1 and D2 were acquitted of the summonses.

HKSAR v. Ming Hing Waterworks Engineering Company Limited(with Mr Lawrence Hui): acted as a junior on one count of summons concerning noise control permit. The Client was acquitted of the summons.

 Road Traffic Offences

 HKSAR v. Wong: acted as the sole advocate for the Client facing one count of careless driving. Alan successfully persuaded the Court that at the material time, the Client did not infringe any of the rules stipulated in the Road User Guide and that the prosecution witnesses had exaggerated the matters, rendering the prosecution witnesses (that is, the drivers and the passenger) neither credible nor reliable witnesses. The Client was acquitted.

 HKSAR v. Poon: The Client was a senior manager of a bank. Alan acted as the sole advocate for the client, facing one count of careless driving. Alan prosperously persuaded the Court that at the material time, the Client did not violate any of the rules under the Road User Guide, whereas the victim in question had infringed the Pedestrian Code (which forms part of the Road User Guide). The Client was acquitted.

 HKSAR v. Fung: The Client was a senior police inspector. Alan acted as the sole advocate for the client, facing one count of careless driving. During the trial, Alan managed to elicit from the prosecution witness that he was crossing the double line across the client, who was staying within his lane. The Client was acquitted.

 HKSAR v. Tang: acted as a sole advocate for the Client facing one count of dangerous driving.

 Sexual Offences

Alan is extremely experienced in handling cases related to voyeurism and/or offences of outraging public decency.

HKSAR v. Chan: acted as the sole advocate for the Client facing one count of outraging public decency. This was a case where the Prosecution relied solely on the observer’s evidence. During the trial, Alan managed to persuade the Court to accept that the observant was not a credible and reliable witness. In particular, during the examination in chief, the observant was given the opportunity to review the CCTV footage. The observant, at first, told the Court that the alleged incident had already taken place during the CCTV footage. Nevertheless, during the hearing, when the observant was referred to the snapshots of the CCTV footage (which was produced as the Defence’s exhibits), the observant then deviated from her original evidence and invented that the alleged incident took place after the CCTV footage. On this note, Alan further enlightened this point and argued that the observer’s evidence at the hearing was inherently improbable. The Court accepted the arguments enunciated by the Defence. The client was acquitted of the charge.

HKSAR v. So: acted as the sole advocate for the Client facing one count of indecent assault. Alan managed to persuade the Court that the “touch” was merely accidental and that the prosecution witness exaggerated the matters whilst giving evidence during the trial. The Client was acquitted.

 Other Criminal Cases

 HKSAR v. Chan Man Yiu [2018] HKCA 804 (with Mr Dick Lee), acted as a junior on a criminal appeal on a charge of burglary.

HKSAR v. Chan Ting [2019] HKCFI 256 (with Mr Lawrence Hui), acted as a junior on a criminal appeal on a charge of indecent assault.

HKSAR v. Wong Ming Wai [2021] HKCFI 170 (with Mr James Tze), acted as a junior on a criminal appeal regarding a police officer assaulting a civilian.

HKSAR v. Chung Wai Yee (HCMA 280/2020), acted as the advocate on a criminal appeal regarding theft.

HKSAR v. Li Pui Ka & Anor [2020] HKDC 239 (DCCC 725/2019), acted as a sole advocate to mitigate for the Client who was charged with three counts of using a false instrument.

HKSAR v. Yip Man Leung (DCCC 814/2019) (with Mr Jon Wong), acted as a junior to mitigate for the Client who was charged with one count of riot.

HKSAR v. Faraz Waqaas (DCCC 465/2020) (with Mr Clement Lau), acted as a junior for a Client charged with various counts, including dangerous driving.

HKSAR v. Kam acted as the advocate for the 2nd Defendant, who was facing a charge of fighting in a public area. Alan convinced the court that the 2nd Defendant was acting in self-defence against a complex factual matrix. He was acquitted.

HKSAR v. Lyu acted for the Client facing three charges, including one count of conspiracy to defraud and two counts of false statements. Alan managed to persuade the Court that the respective officer was inducing the Client when compiling the cautioned statement. In the end, all three charges were acquitted.