{
  "Date": "19 May, 2016",
  "Action No.": "FAMC15/2016",
  "Neutral Cit.": "[2016] HKCFA 41",
  "case_title": "HKSAR V. LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH AND ANOTHER",
  "page_title": "HKSAR V. LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH AND ANOTHER | [2016] HKCFA 41 | HKLII",
  "case_history": [],
  "appeal_history": [
    {
      "name": "FAMC15/2016",
      "link": "https://www.hklii.hk/en/appealhistory/FAMC/2016/15"
    }
  ],
  "case_url": "https://www.hklii.hk/en/cases/hkcfa/2016/41",
  "neutral_cit": "[2016] HKCFA 41",
  "court_code": "HKCFA",
  "content": "FAMC68/2015 HKSAR v. LUK KIN PETER JOSEPH AND ANOTHER\nFAMC Nos 68, 69 of 2015 & 15 of 2016\nFAMC No 68 of 2015\nIN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE\nHONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION\nMISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 68 OF 2015 (CRIMINAL)\n(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL\nFROM CACC NO 283 OF 2014)\n____________________\nBETWEEN\nHKSAR\nRespondent\nand\nLUK KIN PETER JOSEPH (陸健)\nApplicant\n(1\nst\nDefendant)\n____________________\nFAMC No 69 of 2015\nIN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE\nHONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION\nMISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 69 OF 2015 (CRIMINAL)\n(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL\nFROM CACC NO 283 OF 2014)\n____________________\nBETWEEN\nHKSAR\nRespondent\nand\nYU OI KEE (余藹琪)\nApplicant\n(2\nnd\nDefendant)\n____________________\nFAMC No 15 of 2016\nIN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE\nHONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION\nMISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 15 OF 2016 (CRIMINAL)\n(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL\nFROM CACC NO 283 OF 2014)\n____________________\nBETWEEN\nHKSAR\nApplicant\nand\nLUK KIN PETER JOSEPH(陸健)\n1\nst\nRespondent\nYU OI KEE (余藹琪)\n2\nnd\nRespondent\n____________________\nAppeal Committee: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and\n                Mr Justice Tang PJ\nDate of Hearing: 19 May 2016\nDate of Determination: 19 May 2016\n________________________\nDETERMINATION\n________________________\nChief Justice Ma:\n1.\nLeave is given for all three applications, on the following questions: -\n(1)   What is the meaning of “agent” for the purposes of\ns.9\nof the\nPrevention of Bribery Ordinance\n,\nCap. 201\n(“the POBO”) and specifically whether a person who is under no legal, contractual or fiduciary obligation to act in relation to the affairs or business of another is that person’s “agent” for the purposes of s.9?\n(2)   Whether the words “or other document” in s.9(3) of the POBO are to be construed\nejusdem generis\nwith the words which precede them and specifically whether board minutes are documents which come under this definition?\n(3)   Whether or not the common law principle as espoused in\nR v McDonnell\n[1966] QB 233\nand\nAttorney-General’s Reference (No. 2 of 1982)\n1 QB 624\n, in the context of the offence of conspiracy to defraud or theft, namely, the principle that the mind and will of the sole director(s) are treated in law as the mind and will of the limited company, applies in the context of the statutory anti-corruption regime under the POBO and, in particular, to the offence of conspiracy for agents to use a document with intent to deceive their principal, contrary to sections 9(3) and 12(1) of the POBO and section\ns 159A\nand 159C of the\nCrimes Ordinance\n,\nCap. 200\n?\n2.\nThese appeals will be listed for hearing on 23 November 2016.\n(Geoffrey Ma)\nChief Justice\n(R A V Ribeiro)\nPermanent Judge\n(Robert Tang)\nPermanent Judge\nMr Edwin Choy and Mr Joe Chan, instructed by V. Hau & Chow, for the 1\nst\nDefendant (Applicant in FAMC 68/2015)\nMr Gerard McCoy SC leading Mr Albert N.B. Wong in FAMC 69/2015, and leading Ms Nisha Mohamed in FAMC 15/2016, instructed by Leung & Lau, for the 2\nnd\nDefendant (Applicant in FAMC 69/2015)\nMr William Tam SC, DDPP, and Ms Samantha Chiu, SPP, of the Department of Justice, for the HKSAR (Applicant in FAMC 15/2016)",
  "attachments": [
    {
      "download_url": "https://legalref.judiciary.hk/doc/judg/word/vetted/other/en/2015/FAMC000068_2015.doc",
      "file_name": "FAMC000068_2015.doc",
      "file_ext": ".doc",
      "status": "failed"
    }
  ]
}