商業犯罪

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the 4th day of the trial, Alan strategically proposed to the Prosecution that the charge against the 3rd Defendant be withdrawn.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

 香港特別行政區訴林案： 為面臨兩項洗錢指控的當事人提供法律代理。辯方提出論點指出，警員在警告程序中未能給予當事人合理機會，使其能就所面臨的洗錢指控作出解釋。審訊期間，艾倫成功說服法庭採信當事人身為商人的合理信念——其從客戶處收受的款項確屬合法交易所得。最終當事人兩項罪名均獲判無罪。.

香港特別行政區訴李： 本所代表客戶就兩項涉及約1,551,000港元的洗錢罪名進行辯護。辯方提出論點，質疑《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》（第455章）第25A(2)(b)(i)至(iii)條是否適用於被告人已在證人陳述書（警署證物154號）中披露該筆收益的情況。 當事人最終獲判兩項罪名均不成立。.

艾倫經常受聘就洗錢相關事宜、根據《防止賄賂條例》提出的指控，以及/或涉及欺詐及/或串謀詐騙的罪行提供法律意見。.

 竊盜

 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abandoned property, emphasising the surrounding circumstances of the case: the four large printing presses were outdated, covered in dust, and significantly depreciated; no markings or claims of ownership were present; and the items had been left unattended in the corridor for an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: 艾倫代表一名患有嚴重憂鬱症的海事時間管理員出庭。在審理過程中，他成功說服法庭採信：在案發關鍵時段，被告因經歷嚴重憂鬱發作而忘記服藥。 經聆聽被告及辯方傳召專家證人的證詞後，資深治安法官認可被告確有可能因注意力分散而導致記憶受損，此狀況源於其在指稱關鍵時間點的醫療狀況。據此，相關指控獲判無罪。.

 香港特別行政區訴徐: 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.

工業傳票，建築安全

 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.

 香港特別行政區政府 訴 明興水務工程有限公司及其他人士（共10份傳票）： 在為期三天的審訊中，艾倫擔任合資企業與分包商的唯一辯護律師。經其對主要證人進行盤問後，檢方終於察覺該證人所提供的證據對檢方案情不利。儘管如此，檢方仍申請將該主要證人列為敵對證人。 最終，裁判官基於以下理由駁回檢方申請：其認同辯方立場，認定該主要證人所作證詞僅屬不利證據，而非敵對證據。檢方指控因此全面崩潰，十份傳票所涉案件全數獲判無罪。.

香港特別行政區政府 訴 明興水務工程有限公司（D1）及其他人（D2）： 作為主要承包商D1的唯一辯護人，法庭提出論據並採納了D1在關鍵時期已採取合理充分措施保障該建築工地工人安全的見解。D1獲判無罪。.

 香港特別行政區政府 訴 明興水務工程有限公司（D1）及其他人（D2）： 作為主要承建商D1的唯一辯護人。就施工現場展示表格4的適當時限提出論點。D1與D2均獲判無罪，免於傳票指控。.

香港特別行政區 訴 明興水務工程有限公司（與許文傑律師共同代理）：就一項涉及噪音管制許可證的傳票指控擔任助理律師。當事人獲判無罪。.

 道路交通違規行為

 香港特別行政區訴黃某案： 艾倫律師作為當事人唯一辯護律師，就一項魯莽駕駛指控進行辯護。艾倫成功說服法庭認定：案發時當事人並未違反《道路使用者指南》所載任何規則，且控方證人（即駕駛員與乘客）對事實有所誇大，致使該等證人既不可信亦不可靠。當事人最終獲判無罪。.

 香港特別行政區訴潘氏： 當事人係某銀行高階主管。艾倫作為當事人唯一辯護律師，針對一項魯莽駕駛指控進行辯護。艾倫成功說服法庭認定：案發時當事人並未違反《道路使用者指南》任何規定，而涉案受害人實則違反了《行人守則》（該守則屬《道路使用者指南》組成部分）。當事人最終獲判無罪。.

 香港特別行政區訴馮案： 當事人是一名資深警督。艾倫作為當事人唯一辯護律師，為其辯護一項魯莽駕駛罪名。庭審期間，艾倫成功從控方證人處引導出關鍵證詞：該證人當時正橫越雙黃線，而當事人始終保持在自身車道內行駛。最終當事人獲判無罪。.

 香港特別行政區訴鄧： 作為客戶的唯一辯護律師，為其辯護一項危險駕駛罪名。.

 性罪行

艾倫在處理偷窺及/或公然猥褻等案件方面擁有極豐富的經驗。.

香港特別行政區訴陳艾倫擔任客戶的唯一辯護律師，該客戶被控一項公然猥褻罪。本案中檢方完全依賴目擊證人的證詞。庭審期間，艾倫成功說服法庭認定該目擊證人缺乏可信度與可靠性。尤其在主訊問階段，目擊證人獲准檢視閉路電視錄影畫面。 該目擊者起初向法庭聲稱，指控事件發生於閉路電視錄像所涵蓋的時間段內。然而在聽證會上，當法庭出示辯方證據——閉路電視錄像的靜態截圖時，該目擊者竟背離原證詞，謊稱指控事件發生於錄像結束之後。 就此，艾倫進一步闡明此點，並辯稱該觀察員在聽證會上的證詞本質上難以成立。法庭採納了辯方提出的論點，當事人獲判無罪。.

香港特別行政區訴蘇： 艾倫作為當事人唯一辯護律師，為其處理一項猥褻襲擊指控。他成功說服法庭認定該「觸碰」純屬意外，並指出檢方證人在庭審作證時誇大了事件經過。當事人最終獲判無罪。.

 其他刑事案件

 香港特別行政區訴陳文耀 [2018] HKCA 804（與李迪克律師共同出庭），於一宗涉及入屋盜竊罪名的刑事上訴案件中擔任初級律師。.

香港特別行政區訴陳廷 [2019] HKCFI 256（與許文傑律師共同出庭），於一宗涉及非禮指控的刑事上訴案中擔任初級律師。.

香港特別行政區訴黃明偉 [2021] HKCFI 170（與謝志偉律師共同出庭），於一宗涉及警員襲擊平民的刑事上訴案中擔任初級律師。.

香港特別行政區訴鍾慧儀 (HCMA 280/2020)，擔任涉及盜竊罪之刑事上訴案件之辯護律師。.

香港特別行政區訴李培嘉及另一人 [2020] HKDC 239 (DCCC 725/2019)，擔任唯一辯護律師，為被控三項使用虛假文書罪名的當事人進行辯護。.

香港特別行政區訴葉文亮 (DCCC 814/2019)（與黃俊先生共同代理），以初級律師身份為被控一項暴動罪的當事人進行辯護。.

香港特別行政區訴法拉茲·瓦卡斯 (DCCC 465/2020)（與劉健明律師共同代理），擔任一名被控多項罪名（包括危險駕駛）的客戶的初級律師。.

香港特別行政區訴甘 艾倫擔任第二被告的辯護律師，該被告面臨在公共場所鬥毆的指控。艾倫向法庭成功辯稱，第二被告是在複雜的事實情境下進行自衛行為。最終被告獲判無罪。.

香港特別行政區訴呂 艾倫代表客戶應對三項指控，包括一項串謀詐騙罪及兩項虛假陳述罪。他成功說服法庭，認定相關警員在編寫警告陳述書時誘導了當事人。最終，三項指控均獲判無罪。.