商业犯罪

 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the 4th day of the trial, Alan strategically proposed to the Prosecution that the charge against the 3rd Defendant be withdrawn.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.

 香港特别行政区诉林案： 本律师代理面临两项洗钱指控的当事人。辩护方提出，警员在警告程序中未能给予当事人合理机会解释其所面临的洗钱指控。庭审期间，艾伦成功说服法庭认定：当事人作为商人，有合理理由相信其客户提供的资金系合法交易所得。当事人最终两项指控均获无罪判决。.

香港特别行政区诉李案： 本所代理客户应对两项洗钱指控，涉案金额约为1.55亿港元。辩护方就《有组织及严重罪行条例》（第455章）第25A(2)(b)(i)至(iii)条是否适用提出论点，即当被告在其证人陈述书（警署证词154）中披露犯罪所得时，该条款是否适用。 客户最终获判两项罪名均不成立。.

艾伦经常被要求就洗钱相关事宜、根据《防止贿赂条例》提出的指控以及/或涉及欺诈及/或串谋欺诈的罪行提供法律意见。.

 盗窃

 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abandoned property, emphasising the surrounding circumstances of the case: the four large printing presses were outdated, covered in dust, and significantly depreciated; no markings or claims of ownership were present; and the items had been left unattended in the corridor for an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: 艾伦代表一名患有严重抑郁症的海事时效官员出庭。庭审期间，他成功说服法庭采信：在争议时间段内，被告因经历严重抑郁发作而忘记服药。 经听取被告及辩方专家证人的证词，主审法官认可被告确有可能因精神状态受疾病影响而分心，导致记忆力受损。据此，该项指控最终获得无罪判决。.

 香港特别行政区诉徐: 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.

工业传票，施工安全

 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.

 香港特别行政区诉明兴水务工程有限公司及其他公司（共10份传票）： 在为期三天的庭审中，艾伦作为合资企业及分包商的唯一辩护律师出庭。当艾伦对检方主要证人进行交叉质询后，检方终于意识到该证人提供的证词对其指控不利。尽管如此，检方仍申请将该证人列为敌对证人。 最终，法官采纳辩护方立场，认定该证人证词仅属不利而非敌对性质，驳回了检方申请。检方案件因此彻底崩溃，所有10份传票最终均获无罪判决。.

香港特别行政区诉明兴水务工程有限公司（D1）及其他人（D2）： 作为总承包商D1的唯一辩护人，辩护方提出论点，法院采纳了该观点，认定D1在关键时期已采取合理充分的措施保障相关建筑工地工人的安全。D1最终被宣告无罪。.

 香港特别行政区诉明兴水务工程有限公司（D1）及其他人（D2）： 作为总承包商D1的唯一代理人，就施工现场展示表格4的适当时间框架提出了论点。D1和D2均被裁定传票不成立。.

香港特别行政区诉明兴水务工程有限公司（与许文杰先生共同代理）：就噪音管制许可证的一项传票指控担任助理律师。当事人最终被判无罪。.

 道路交通违法行为

 香港特别行政区诉黄某案： 作为客户的唯一辩护律师，艾伦成功为面临一项疏忽驾驶指控的当事人进行辩护。他向法庭有力论证：案发时当事人并未违反《道路使用者指南》的任何规定，且检方证人（即驾驶员与乘客）对事实进行了夸大陈述，致使这些证人既不可信亦不可靠。当事人最终获得无罪判决。.

 香港特别行政区诉潘案： 该客户系某银行高级经理。艾伦作为其唯一辩护律师，就一项疏忽驾驶指控进行辩护。艾伦成功说服法庭认定：案发时客户并未违反《道路使用者指南》的任何规定，而涉案受害人实际违反了《行人守则》（该守则系《道路使用者指南》组成部分）。最终客户被宣告无罪。.

 香港特别行政区诉冯案： 当事人系高级警督。艾伦作为当事人唯一辩护律师，为其辩护应对一项疏忽驾驶指控。庭审期间，艾伦成功促使检方证人承认其当时正横越双黄线，而当事人始终保持在自身车道内行驶。当事人最终获判无罪。.

 香港特别行政区诉邓案： 作为客户的唯一辩护律师，为其辩护一项危险驾驶指控。.

 性犯罪

艾伦在处理偷窥行为及/或公然猥亵罪相关案件方面经验极其丰富。.

香港特别行政区诉陈作为客户的唯一辩护律师，处理了一起涉嫌公然猥亵罪的案件。本案中检方完全依赖目击证人的证词。庭审期间，艾伦成功说服法庭认定该目击证人缺乏可信度与可靠性。尤其在直接询问环节，目击证人被允许重新审阅监控录像。 该目击者最初向法庭陈述，指控事件发生在监控录像时段内。然而在庭审中，当辩方出示监控录像截图作为证据时，目击者竟推翻原证词，虚构事件发生在录像时段之后。 就此，艾伦进一步阐明该点并辩称，该目击者在庭审中的证词存在根本性矛盾。法庭采纳了辩方提出的论点，当事人最终被宣告无罪。.

香港特别行政区诉苏案： 作为唯一辩护律师，艾伦为面临一项猥亵罪指控的当事人出庭辩护。他成功说服法庭认定该“触碰”纯属意外，并指出控方证人在庭审作证时夸大了事实。当事人最终被宣告无罪。.

 其他刑事案件

 香港特别行政区诉陈文耀 [2018] HKCA 804（与李迪克先生共同代理），在涉及入室盗窃指控的刑事上诉案中担任初级律师。.

香港特别行政区诉陈廷 [2019] HKCFI 256（与许文辉律师共同代理），在涉及猥亵罪名的刑事上诉案中担任助理律师。.

香港特别行政区诉黄明伟案 [2021] HKCFI 170（与谢志豪律师共同代理），在涉及警员殴打平民的刑事上诉案中担任助理律师。.

香港特别行政区诉钟慧仪 (HCMA 280/2020)，在涉及盗窃的刑事上诉中担任辩护律师。.

香港特别行政区诉李培嘉及另一人 [2020] HKDC 239 (DCCC 725/2019)，作为唯一辩护律师为被控三项使用虚假文书罪名的客户进行辩护。.

香港特别行政区诉叶文亮案 (DCCC 814/2019) (与黄先生共同代理)，作为初级律师为被控一项暴动罪的当事人进行辩护。.

香港特别行政区诉法拉兹·瓦卡斯 (DCCC 465/2020) (与刘克明先生共同代理)，作为助理律师为被控多项罪名（包括危险驾驶）的当事人提供辩护。.

香港特别行政区诉甘 艾伦担任第二被告的辩护律师，该被告被控在公共场所斗殴。艾伦向法庭成功论证第二被告是在复杂的事实背景下实施正当防卫，最终被告被宣告无罪。.

香港特别行政区诉吕某案 艾伦为面临三项指控的当事人提供辩护，包括一项欺诈共谋罪和两项虚假陈述罪。他成功说服法庭认定，相关警员在制作警告陈述时诱导了当事人。最终，三项指控均获无罪判决。.