模型输出对比分析：2025_HKCFA_20 v3
parent
d3cba48e12
commit
f70cdf8617
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
|
||||||
|
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
|
||||||
|
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
|
||||||
|
- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR appeals against the convictions of defendants for conspiracy to conceal connected transactions
|
||||||
|
under the Listing Rules.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- conviction
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Conspiracy to conceal connected transaction (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: "Allowed. Court restored defendants' convictions, finding concealment of CISL's role as actual\
|
||||||
|
\ placing agent constituted unlawful scheme. Key reasons: (1) CISL's connection to CFHL made its agency\
|
||||||
|
\ a connected transaction requiring disclosure; (2) defendants' use of Gransing as a front obscured\
|
||||||
|
\ this conflict of interest; (3) failure to subject arrangement to Exchange scrutiny violated Listing\
|
||||||
|
\ Rules."
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR appealed defendants' convictions for conspiring to conceal connected transactions under Listing
|
||||||
|
Rules. Core issue: Whether defendants' use of Gransing as a front obscured CISL's role as placing agent,
|
||||||
|
violating disclosure obligations. Court rejected sham defense, citing Adams v The Queen, finding concealment
|
||||||
|
of fiduciary breach constituted criminal conspiracy. Evidence showed composite scheme to evade Exchange
|
||||||
|
scrutiny, breaching Listing Rules. Convictions upheld; defendants ordered to serve original sentences.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for fact-finding and adjudication.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||||
|
reason: Appellant in this case, representing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CISL
|
||||||
|
reason: Corporate entity involved as a placing agent in the conspiracy charges.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CFHL
|
||||||
|
reason: Corporate entity involved in connected transactions and placing agreements.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Stock Exchange
|
||||||
|
reason: Regulatory institution overseeing connected transactions and corporate disclosures.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Diplock LJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd [4], articulated test for
|
||||||
|
determining sham transactions.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Privy Council
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as judicial body in Adams v The Queen [5], articulated legal principles for conspiracy
|
||||||
|
to defraud.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "ollama-qwen3-8b",
|
||||||
|
"source": "local",
|
||||||
|
"model": "qwen3:8b",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 140.299,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 10,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 26861,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 5122,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 31983,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.0,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 0.0,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.0,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.0,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.0
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,90 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
|
||||||
|
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
|
||||||
|
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
|
||||||
|
- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR appeals against Court of Appeal's decision quashing convictions of four respondents for conspiracy
|
||||||
|
to defraud in relation to concealment of connected transactions under Listing Rules.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- criminal convictions
|
||||||
|
- conspiracy to defraud charges
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Conspiracy to defraud charges against D1, D2, D3, and D4 (liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: "Appeal allowed, convictions restored. The Court of Final Appeal held that the Court of Appeal\
|
||||||
|
\ erred in applying the Snook sham transaction test. The proper approach is to determine whether CISL's\
|
||||||
|
\ appointment as placing agent would constitute a connected transaction requiring disclosure under\
|
||||||
|
\ the Listing Rules. Since CISL was a connected person to CFHL through Quincy Wong's indirect interest,\
|
||||||
|
\ the interposition of Gransing as a front to conceal CISL's actual role constituted unlawful concealment.\
|
||||||
|
\ The trial judge's finding that Gransing was a mere disguise was upheld as a proper factual determination.\
|
||||||
|
\ The concealment had two objectionable aspects: (1) conflict of interest of the directors involved,\
|
||||||
|
\ and (2) avoidance of scrutiny by independent non-executive directors and the Stock Exchange under\
|
||||||
|
\ the connected transaction regime. WeChat messages between defendants showed deliberate arrangement\
|
||||||
|
\ to use Gransing as a buffer to avoid connected transaction disclosure requirements."
|
||||||
|
- charge: Convictions quashed by Court of Appeal (quantum issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Court of Appeal's decision quashed and set aside. The Court of Final Appeal unanimously allowed
|
||||||
|
the prosecution's appeal and restored the original convictions entered by the trial judge. The Court
|
||||||
|
held that it was not necessary to prove that the arrangement adopted (using Gransing) itself fell
|
||||||
|
within the definition of connected transaction, only that there was concealment of CISL's role which
|
||||||
|
would have triggered connected transaction requirements. The trial judge's Reasons for Verdict properly
|
||||||
|
addressed the connected transaction issue and made appropriate findings of fact regarding the disguise
|
||||||
|
arrangement.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR appealed against the Court of Appeal's decision quashing conspiracy to defraud convictions of
|
||||||
|
four defendants who concealed CISL's role as placing agent through interposing Gransing as a front,
|
||||||
|
avoiding connected transaction disclosure under Listing Rules. The Court of Final Appeal held the lower
|
||||||
|
court erred by applying the Snook sham test. The proper inquiry was whether CISL's appointment would
|
||||||
|
trigger connected transaction requirements due to Quincy Wong's indirect interest linking CISL to CFHL.
|
||||||
|
The trial judge correctly found Gransing was a mere disguise based on WeChat evidence showing deliberate
|
||||||
|
concealment to avoid scrutiny by independent directors and the Stock Exchange. The concealment constituted
|
||||||
|
dishonest conduct defrauding regulatory oversight. Appeal allowed; convictions restored for all four
|
||||||
|
defendants.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, concurred with the judgment of Sir William Young NPJ and the concurring
|
||||||
|
judgments of Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Stock NPJ.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, concurred with the judgment of Sir William Young NPJ and the concurring
|
||||||
|
judgments of Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Stock NPJ.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivered concurring judgment providing alternative route for
|
||||||
|
allowing the appeal and restoring convictions.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivered concurring judgment on allowing the appeal and restoring
|
||||||
|
convictions of the defendants.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivered principal judgment allowing the appeal and restoring
|
||||||
|
convictions of the defendants.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU
|
||||||
|
reason: First respondent (D1) in this criminal appeal, defendant convicted in conspiracy charges.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE
|
||||||
|
reason: Second respondent (D2) in this criminal appeal, defendant convicted in conspiracy charges.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON
|
||||||
|
reason: Third respondent (D3) in this criminal appeal, defendant convicted in conspiracy charges.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LEE YICK MING
|
||||||
|
reason: Fourth respondent (D4) in this criminal appeal, defendant convicted in conspiracy charges.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Diplock LJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated test for determining
|
||||||
|
sham transactions, cited in paragraphs 10 and 13 of this judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CISL
|
||||||
|
reason: Corporate entity involved as actual placing agent in the connected transaction, whose appointment
|
||||||
|
was allegedly concealed by the defendants.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CFHL
|
||||||
|
reason: Corporate entity involved in the placing agreements, connected person to CISL through Quincy
|
||||||
|
Wong's indirect interest.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Gransing
|
||||||
|
reason: Corporate entity allegedly used as front or disguise to conceal CISL's role as actual placing
|
||||||
|
agent in the transaction.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Quincy Wong
|
||||||
|
reason: Individual with indirect interest in CISL, whose connection to CFHL formed basis of connected
|
||||||
|
transaction under Listing Rules.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Stock Exchange
|
||||||
|
reason: Regulatory institution responsible for scrutiny of connected transactions under the regime governing
|
||||||
|
such transactions, mentioned in paragraph 8.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "or-claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||||
|
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||||
|
"model": "anthropic/claude-sonnet-4.5",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 52.312,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 9,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 20827,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 2203,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 23030,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 3.0,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 15.0,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.062481,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.033045,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.095526
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,72 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
|
||||||
|
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
|
||||||
|
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
|
||||||
|
- LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's decision (CACC No. 239 of 2021) quashing the convictions
|
||||||
|
of the four respondents, seeking restoration of their convictions.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- convictions
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Appeal by HKSAR against acquittal for conspiracy to defraud and related offences (D1-D4) (liability
|
||||||
|
issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Court restored the convictions of all four defendants. The Court of Appeal erred
|
||||||
|
in applying the Snook sham test; the concealment of CISL's role as actual placing agent constituted
|
||||||
|
a connected transaction under Listing Rules, and the defendants' dishonest agreement to conceal was
|
||||||
|
sufficient for conspiracy to defraud.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR appealed to restore convictions of M KWONG YIU, CHAN LAI YEE, WONG SHUK ON, LEE YICK MING for
|
||||||
|
conspiracy to defraud. The Court of Final Appeal held the Court of Appeal erred in applying the Snook
|
||||||
|
sham test: concealment of CISL as placing agent was a connected transaction under Listing Rules, and
|
||||||
|
dishonest agreement to conceal sufficed for conspiracy to defraud. All four convictions restored.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in this case, agreed with the principal judgment delivered by Sir William Young NPJ.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in this case, agreed with the principal judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in this case, delivered a concurring judgment providing additional reasons.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in this case, delivered a concurring judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, delivered the principal judgment allowing the appeal and restoring
|
||||||
|
convictions.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||||
|
reason: Appellant in this case, representing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (D1)
|
||||||
|
reason: First respondent in this case, one of the defendants convicted of conspiracy to defraud.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (D2)
|
||||||
|
reason: Second respondent in this case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (D3)
|
||||||
|
reason: Third respondent in this case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (D4)
|
||||||
|
reason: Fourth respondent in this case.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CISL
|
||||||
|
reason: Company involved as the actual placing agent, a connected person to CFHL, central to the conspiracy
|
||||||
|
charges.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Gransing
|
||||||
|
reason: Company involved as a front or disguise in the placing arrangement, used to conceal CISL's role.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CFHL
|
||||||
|
reason: Company to which CISL is a connected person, relevant to the connected transaction analysis.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Quincy Wong
|
||||||
|
reason: Individual with indirect interest in CISL, mentioned in connection with the concealment of CISL's
|
||||||
|
agency.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Stock Exchange
|
||||||
|
reason: Institution that would scrutinize connected transactions under the Listing Rules, relevant to
|
||||||
|
the charges.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Court of Appeal
|
||||||
|
reason: Lower court that erred in its judgment, leading to the appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Diplock LJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated the test for determining
|
||||||
|
sham transactions.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Privy Council
|
||||||
|
reason: Court in Adams v The Queen, illustrated that conspiracy to defraud can be charged without resorting
|
||||||
|
to the concept of sham.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "or-deepseek-v4-flash",
|
||||||
|
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||||
|
"model": "deepseek/deepseek-v4-flash",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 144.972,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 8,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 16983,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 6455,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 23438,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.1,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 0.2,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.001698,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.001291,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.002989
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀) (D1)
|
||||||
|
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒) (D2)
|
||||||
|
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安) (D3)
|
||||||
|
- LEE YICK MING (李易明) (D4)
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
The HKSAR appeals against the acquittal of four respondents (CACC 239/2021), seeking to restore their
|
||||||
|
convictions for conspiracy to defraud regarding concealed connected transactions.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- criminal convictions for conspiracy to defraud
|
||||||
|
- disclosure of connected transactions
|
||||||
|
- compliance with Listing Rules
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Conspiracy to defraud involving the concealment of connected transactions in share placements
|
||||||
|
(liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: Allowed. The Court of Final Appeal restored the convictions of the defendants, finding that
|
||||||
|
the Court of Appeal erred in requiring the transactions to be 'shams' under the Snook test. The court
|
||||||
|
held that the unlawfulness lay in the dishonest agreement to use a front (Gransing) to conceal the
|
||||||
|
actual role of a connected person (CISL) to avoid regulatory scrutiny and disclosure of conflicts
|
||||||
|
of interest.
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
The HKSAR appealed the acquittal of four respondents regarding a conspiracy to conceal connected transactions
|
||||||
|
between CFHL and CISL using Gransing as a front. The core issue was whether concealment required transactions
|
||||||
|
to be 'shams'. The Court of Final Appeal restored the convictions, ruling the Court of Appeal erred
|
||||||
|
by applying the Snook test. Citing Adams v The Queen, the court held that dishonest concealment to bypass
|
||||||
|
regulatory scrutiny constitutes fraud regardless of legal validity.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for adjudication and delivering the judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for adjudication and delivering the judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for adjudication and delivering a concurring judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for adjudication and delivering a concurring judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this case, responsible for adjudication and delivering the lead judgment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||||
|
reason: The Appellant in this criminal appeal representing the prosecution.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
|
||||||
|
reason: The 1st Respondent (D1) in this criminal appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
|
||||||
|
reason: The 2nd Respondent (D2) in this criminal appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
|
||||||
|
reason: The 3rd Respondent (D3) in this criminal appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明)
|
||||||
|
reason: The 4th Respondent (D4) in this criminal appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CISL
|
||||||
|
reason: Legal entity involved in the alleged conspiracy as the actual placing agent and identified as
|
||||||
|
a connected person to CFHL.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Gransing
|
||||||
|
reason: Legal entity involved in the alleged conspiracy, described as a front or disguise for CISL.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CFHL
|
||||||
|
reason: Legal entity involved in the transaction and the subject of the connected transaction disclosure
|
||||||
|
requirements.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Quincy Wong
|
||||||
|
reason: Natural person mentioned as having an indirect interest in CISL, relevant to the determination
|
||||||
|
of connected transactions.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The Stock Exchange
|
||||||
|
reason: Regulatory institution responsible for the scrutiny of connected transactions and the recipient
|
||||||
|
of required disclosures.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Diplock LJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated the legal test
|
||||||
|
for sham transactions cited in paragraph 10 of this judgment.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "or-gemini-3-flash-preview",
|
||||||
|
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||||
|
"model": "google/gemini-3-flash-preview",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 18.444,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 6,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 12364,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 1206,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 13570,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.5,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 3.0,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.006182,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.003618,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.0098
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,88 @@
|
||||||
|
plaintiff:
|
||||||
|
- HKSAR
|
||||||
|
defendant:
|
||||||
|
- MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
|
||||||
|
- CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
|
||||||
|
- WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
|
||||||
|
- LEE YICK MING (李易明)
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_code: HKCFA
|
||||||
|
jurisdiction_name: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_location:
|
||||||
|
- 香港特別行政區
|
||||||
|
- Hong Kong Special Administrative Region
|
||||||
|
case_reason: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR appeals against the Court of Appeal's acquittal of the defendants on conspiracy charges concerning
|
||||||
|
concealment of CISL's role as placing agent.
|
||||||
|
case_object:
|
||||||
|
- conspiracy convictions
|
||||||
|
- connected transaction concealment
|
||||||
|
judgment_result:
|
||||||
|
- charge: Conspiracy charges - concealment of CISL's role as actual placing agent with Gransing as front
|
||||||
|
(liability issue)
|
||||||
|
result: "Allowed. Court of Final Appeal allowed the appeal and restored the convictions of all four\
|
||||||
|
\ defendants. The gravamen of the conspiracy charges was the dishonest concealment of CISL's role\
|
||||||
|
\ as placing agent; the proper approach is to ask whether CISL's appointment would constitute a connected\
|
||||||
|
\ transaction under the Listing Rules, which it clearly would as CISL is a connected person to CFHL.\
|
||||||
|
\ The Court of Appeal erred in holding that the placing agreements must be sham transactions under\
|
||||||
|
\ Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd for the prosecution case to succeed. The interposition\
|
||||||
|
\ of Gransing as a mere disguise was a question of fact resolved by the trial judge and there was\
|
||||||
|
\ no basis for disturbing this finding. The concealment had two objectionable aspects: the directors'\
|
||||||
|
\ conflict of interest and the avoidance of scrutiny under the connected transactions regime."
|
||||||
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
||||||
|
HKSAR appealed against Court of Appeal's acquittal of four defendants on conspiracy charges concerning
|
||||||
|
concealment of CISL's role as placing agent through Gransing. CFA allowed the appeal and restored all
|
||||||
|
convictions. The Court of Appeal erred in requiring the placing agreements to be sham transactions under
|
||||||
|
Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd; the proper approach is whether CISL's appointment constituted
|
||||||
|
a connected transaction under Listing Rules, which it clearly did as CISL was connected to CFHL. The
|
||||||
|
concealment had two objectionable aspects: directors' conflict of interest and avoidance of scrutiny
|
||||||
|
under the connected transactions regime. The interposition of Gransing as mere disguise was a factual
|
||||||
|
finding by the trial judge. Dishonesty was properly addressed and proven by the prosecution.
|
||||||
|
involved_entities:
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered judgment concurring with Sir William
|
||||||
|
Young NPJ.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Fok PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered judgment concurring with Sir William
|
||||||
|
Young NPJ.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Lam PJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered concurring judgment providing
|
||||||
|
alternative route for allowing the appeal and restoring convictions.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Mr Justice Stock NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Non-permanent judge in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered judgment in draft which was
|
||||||
|
concurred with by Mr Justice Lam PJ.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Sir William Young NPJ
|
||||||
|
reason: Non-permanent judge in this Court of Final Appeal case, delivered lead judgment with which other
|
||||||
|
judges concurred.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Lord Diplock
|
||||||
|
reason: Served as judge in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd, articulated the test for
|
||||||
|
determining whether transactions were sham for purposes of legal proceedings.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: HKSAR
|
||||||
|
reason: Appellant in this criminal final appeal before the Court of Final Appeal.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: MAK KWONG YIU (麥光耀)
|
||||||
|
reason: First respondent (D1) in this criminal final appeal, convicted defendant in the underlying proceedings.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CHAN LAI YEE (陳麗兒)
|
||||||
|
reason: Second respondent (D2) in this criminal final appeal, convicted defendant in the underlying
|
||||||
|
proceedings.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: WONG SHUK ON (黃淑安)
|
||||||
|
reason: Third respondent (D3) in this criminal final appeal, convicted defendant in the underlying proceedings.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: LEE YICK MING (李易明)
|
||||||
|
reason: Fourth respondent (D4) in this criminal final appeal, convicted defendant in the underlying
|
||||||
|
proceedings.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CISL
|
||||||
|
reason: Connected person to CFHL, actual placing agent whose role was concealed by the defendants through
|
||||||
|
the interposition of Gransing.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: CFHL
|
||||||
|
reason: Company involved in the placing agreements, to which CISL was a connected person.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Gransing
|
||||||
|
reason: Front company or disguise used to conceal CISL's role as actual placing agent.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Quincy Wong
|
||||||
|
reason: Individual with indirect interest in CISL, creating the connected person relationship to CFHL.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong Stock Exchange
|
||||||
|
reason: Regulatory body whose regime governing connected transactions was to be avoided through the
|
||||||
|
concealment.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: The learned trial judge
|
||||||
|
reason: Presiding judge at trial who addressed the issue of connected transaction and made factual findings
|
||||||
|
regarding Gransing being a mere disguise.
|
||||||
|
- entity_name: Court of Appeal
|
||||||
|
reason: Lower appellate court whose judgment was under appeal, fell into error by misapplying the Snook
|
||||||
|
test for sham transactions.
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,16 @@
|
||||||
|
{
|
||||||
|
"config_name": "or-minimax-m2.7",
|
||||||
|
"source": "openrouter",
|
||||||
|
"model": "minimax/minimax-m2.7",
|
||||||
|
"elapsed_seconds": 199.008,
|
||||||
|
"num_api_calls": 9,
|
||||||
|
"input_tokens": 19280,
|
||||||
|
"output_tokens": 5253,
|
||||||
|
"total_tokens": 24533,
|
||||||
|
"input_price_per_million": 0.279,
|
||||||
|
"output_price_per_million": 1.2,
|
||||||
|
"price_unit": "USD",
|
||||||
|
"input_cost": 0.005379,
|
||||||
|
"output_cost": 0.006304,
|
||||||
|
"total_cost": 0.011683
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
10
models.json
10
models.json
|
|
@ -58,15 +58,5 @@
|
||||||
"input_price": 0,
|
"input_price": 0,
|
||||||
"output_price": 0,
|
"output_price": 0,
|
||||||
"price_unit": "USD"
|
"price_unit": "USD"
|
||||||
},
|
|
||||||
{
|
|
||||||
"Name": "ollama-qwen2.5-7b",
|
|
||||||
"source": "local",
|
|
||||||
"BaseApiUrl": "https://openai.iconsz.com/ollama3090/v1",
|
|
||||||
"ApiKey": "ollama",
|
|
||||||
"model": "qwen2.5:7b-instruct",
|
|
||||||
"input_price": 0,
|
|
||||||
"output_price": 0,
|
|
||||||
"price_unit": "USD"
|
|
||||||
}
|
}
|
||||||
]
|
]
|
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
@ -0,0 +1,145 @@
|
||||||
|
# 模型输出对比分析：2025_HKCFA_20 v3
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 评估基准
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
案件原文要点如下：香港特区政府就上诉庭撤销四名被告串谋诈骗定罪一事向终审法院上诉。终院一致准许上诉，撤销上诉庭判决，恢复区域法院对各被告的定罪及相关命令。核心事实是 CFHL 与 Gransing 签订配售协议、Gransing 随即与 CISL 签订分配售协议，但 CISL 实际上才是配售代理；Gransing 被用作前置/掩饰，以隐藏 CISL 的角色。法律重点包括：上诉庭错误地以 Snook 的 sham transaction 测试限制控方案情；无需证明文件交易本身是 sham；关键在于是否以不诚实方式隐瞒 CISL 的实际角色、利益冲突和关连交易审查问题。判决还分别讨论了 D1、D2、D3、D4 的知情、参与和不诚实，以及第 1 项控罪针对 CFHL、董事会、股东和潜在投资者，第 3 项控罪针对联交所履行监管职责。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
评分采用 10.0 分制，综合考虑：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 准确度：当事人、法院、程序姿态、判决结果、法律争点和事实链是否正确。
|
||||||
|
- 完整度：是否覆盖两项控罪、Snook 错误、CISL/Gransing/CFHL 关系、关连交易、利益冲突、联交所职责、经济损失/风险、各被告责任等关键内容。
|
||||||
|
- 输出可靠性：是否存在乱码、误称、过度概括、事实添加或字段理由模板化问题。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 总览排名
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| 排名 | 模型 | 准确度与完整度评分 | 主要结论 |
|
||||||
|
|---:|---|---:|---|
|
||||||
|
| 1 | or-claude-sonnet-4.5 | 8.7/10 | 覆盖最完整，抓住 Snook 错误、Gransing 前置、CISL 关连人、恢复定罪等核心；但有少量不准确表述。 |
|
||||||
|
| 2 | or-minimax-m2.7 | 8.4/10 | 摘要扎实、法律争点准确，中文姓名正常；但对具体控罪、D2-D4 个别责任和经济损失风险覆盖不足。 |
|
||||||
|
| 3 | or-deepseek-v4-flash | 8.0/10 | 基本事实和结果准确，中文姓名正常；表达较简略，并出现“related offences”等不严谨扩展。 |
|
||||||
|
| 4 | or-gemini-3-flash-preview | 7.6/10 | 核心结论正确、成本和速度表现好；但误称 acquittal、share placements，且实体说明较模板化。 |
|
||||||
|
| 5 | ollama-qwen3-8b | 6.4/10 | 能识别主要争点和结果，但中文姓名/地点乱码，案由表述偏离为“conspiracy to conceal connected transaction”，完整度明显不足。 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 费用与耗时
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| 模型 | 来源 | API 调用 | 输入 tokens | 输出 tokens | 总 tokens | 耗时 | 总费用 |
|
||||||
|
|---|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|---:|
|
||||||
|
| ollama-qwen3-8b | local | 10 | 26,861 | 5,122 | 31,983 | 140.299 秒 | USD 0.000000 |
|
||||||
|
| or-claude-sonnet-4.5 | openrouter | 9 | 20,827 | 2,203 | 23,030 | 52.312 秒 | USD 0.095526 |
|
||||||
|
| or-deepseek-v4-flash | openrouter | 8 | 16,983 | 6,455 | 23,438 | 144.972 秒 | USD 0.002989 |
|
||||||
|
| or-gemini-3-flash-preview | openrouter | 6 | 12,364 | 1,206 | 13,570 | 18.444 秒 | USD 0.009800 |
|
||||||
|
| or-minimax-m2.7 | openrouter | 9 | 19,280 | 5,253 | 24,533 | 199.008 秒 | USD 0.011683 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 单模型分析
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 1. or-claude-sonnet-4.5：8.7/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 程序姿态准确：明确是 HKSAR 上诉，针对上诉庭撤销定罪的判决，终院准许上诉并恢复定罪。
|
||||||
|
- 核心法律争点准确：指出上诉庭错误适用 Snook sham transaction 测试；正确把问题转向 CISL 实际担任配售代理是否触发关连交易和披露审查。
|
||||||
|
- 对事实结构覆盖较完整：提到 Gransing 作为 front/buffer，CISL 是实际 placing agent，Quincy Wong 的间接利益使 CISL 与 CFHL 形成关连关系。
|
||||||
|
- 判决理由较充实：覆盖利益冲突、独立非执行董事和联交所审查、隐瞒行为的不诚实性、恢复原定罪等。
|
||||||
|
- involved_entities 字段较完整，包含四名被告、CISL、CFHL、Gransing、Quincy Wong、Stock Exchange 等关键实体。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- “WeChat messages”不准确，原文附录是 D2 与 D3 的 WhatsApp messages。
|
||||||
|
- judgment_result 将“Court of Appeal's decision quashed”标为“quantum issue”不合适，本案主要不是量刑或赔偿数额问题。
|
||||||
|
- 未充分展开 D1、D2、D3、D4 各自责任，尤其 D4 只涉第 1 项控罪、不涉第 3 项控罪这一差异未清楚体现。
|
||||||
|
- 中文姓名来自原始 case.json 的乱码，未修正为正确中文。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：最适合作为结构化抽取结果的基础版本。虽然存在少量标签和细节错误，但对案件主线、争点和裁判结果的把握最稳。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 2. or-minimax-m2.7：8.4/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 当事人、法院、上诉结果和核心争点准确，中文姓名正常。
|
||||||
|
- 对“CISL 实际角色被 Gransing 掩饰”“无需证明 sham”“Snook 测试适用错误”“恢复全部定罪”的表述清楚。
|
||||||
|
- judgment_result 较好地提到两项关键反社会/违法性基础：董事利益冲突，以及规避关连交易审查。
|
||||||
|
- involved_entities 覆盖面较广，包含审级、审判法官、上诉庭、Lord Diplock、联交所等。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 没有明确区分第 1 项控罪和第 3 项控罪，也没有说明第 3 项控罪只涉及 D1-D3、目标是联交所监管职责。
|
||||||
|
- 对 Sir William Young NPJ 主判决中关于 D1-D4 个别责任、D2/D3 的 WhatsApp 证据、D4 的 Gransing 角色说明不足。
|
||||||
|
- “Court of Appeal's acquittal”表述略粗糙；更准确应为上诉庭撤销定罪/定罪被 set aside，而非一审无罪释放。
|
||||||
|
- 对经济损失或经济利益风险这一要素覆盖不足。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：法律主线准确，语言干净，实体质量高；完整度略逊于 Claude，但错误更少、更稳定。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 3. or-deepseek-v4-flash：8.0/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 基本案件信息准确：HKSAR 为上诉方，四名被告/答辩人为原定罪者，终院恢复定罪。
|
||||||
|
- 中文姓名和地点正常，没有乱码问题。
|
||||||
|
- 能正确指出上诉庭错误适用 Snook 测试、Gransing 是 front/disguise、CISL 是实际配售代理且与 CFHL 存在关连。
|
||||||
|
- involved_entities 覆盖主要实体，并加入 Court of Appeal 和 Privy Council 等相关法源/审级实体。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- “conspiracy to defraud and related offences”不够准确，原文附录列明的是第 1 和第 3 项串谋诈骗控罪。
|
||||||
|
- judgment_summary 过于简短，未充分覆盖利益冲突、独立非执行董事、联交所职责、经济损失风险和各被告责任。
|
||||||
|
- “concealment ... constituted a connected transaction”表述略有逻辑压缩；更准确是 CISL 被任命为配售代理会构成/至少引发关连交易问题，隐瞒该角色构成诈骗性安排。
|
||||||
|
- 对 charges 的对象和范围没有拆分。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：高性价比的中等完整结果。若用于检索或初步摘要足够，但若用于法律信息抽取，需要补充控罪和责任层面的细节。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 4. or-gemini-3-flash-preview：7.6/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 速度最快，总耗时仅 18.444 秒，且费用低。
|
||||||
|
- 当事人、法院、结果和核心法律问题基本正确。
|
||||||
|
- 能抓住 Snook sham 测试错误、Gransing 作为 front、CISL 作为 connected person、恢复定罪等主线。
|
||||||
|
- 中文姓名正常，输出简洁。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- “appeals against the acquittal”不够准确，本案是针对上诉庭撤销定罪的进一步上诉。
|
||||||
|
- “share placements”错误，本案原文主要是债券配售/placement of bonds。
|
||||||
|
- involved_entities 中多名法官的 reason 过于模板化，称“responsible for adjudication and delivering the judgment”，没有准确区分主判、同意和协同判词。
|
||||||
|
- 未覆盖第 1 项与第 3 项控罪的区别，也没有展开 D4 与第 3 项控罪无关、联交所职责、经济损失风险、各被告知识状态等。
|
||||||
|
- 摘要偏短，对复杂法律分析压缩较多。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：适合快速、低成本初筛；作为最终法律信息抽取结果则偏薄，且存在一个实质事实错误“share placements”。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
### 5. ollama-qwen3-8b：6.4/10
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
优点：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 能识别 HKSAR 上诉、终院恢复定罪、CISL/Gransing/CFHL/Stock Exchange、Snook 与 Adams 等主要关键词。
|
||||||
|
- 大方向正确：知道争点是 Gransing 掩饰 CISL 实际配售代理角色，以及规避关连交易披露/审查。
|
||||||
|
- 本地运行无 API 费用。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
不足：
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
- 中文姓名和地点出现明显乱码，直接影响实体抽取质量。
|
||||||
|
- case_reason 写成“appeals against the convictions”，方向错误；应为 HKSAR 上诉，要求恢复被上诉庭撤销的定罪。
|
||||||
|
- case_object 仅为“conviction”，过于笼统。
|
||||||
|
- charge 写成“Conspiracy to conceal connected transaction”，不准确；原控罪是 conspiracy to defraud。
|
||||||
|
- judgment_result 和 summary 未区分第 1 项和第 3 项控罪，也未体现四名被告责任差异。
|
||||||
|
- involved_entities 中把终院法官均描述为“responsible for fact-finding”，不准确；终院主要处理法律问题及审查原审事实裁断是否可被干预，事实认定来自审判法官。
|
||||||
|
- 完整度不足，对利益冲突、联交所公共职责、经济损失/风险、WhatsApp 证据、D4 角色等关键内容覆盖很少。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
总体评价：可作为粗略摘要，但不适合作为高质量法律结构化抽取结果。最大问题是编码乱码和若干法律标签不准确。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 性价比分析
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
| 模型 | 质量 | 速度 | 成本 | 性价比判断 |
|
||||||
|
|---|---:|---:|---:|---|
|
||||||
|
| or-gemini-3-flash-preview | 中上 | 最快 | 低 | 快速批量初筛最佳，但需人工校正事实细节。 |
|
||||||
|
| or-deepseek-v4-flash | 中上 | 较慢 | 最低付费 | 成本极优，适合低成本大规模抽取，但摘要偏简。 |
|
||||||
|
| or-minimax-m2.7 | 高 | 最慢 | 低 | 质量好、成本低，但耗时明显偏高。 |
|
||||||
|
| or-claude-sonnet-4.5 | 最高 | 较快 | 最高 | 最适合要求准确和完整的最终版抽取。 |
|
||||||
|
| ollama-qwen3-8b | 较低 | 中等 | 免费 | 适合本地零成本实验，不适合对中文实体和法律标签有要求的场景。 |
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
## 结论
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
若以“信息提取准确度和完整度”为第一目标，推荐 `or-claude-sonnet-4.5`，其次是 `or-minimax-m2.7`。Claude 的完整度最好，能较充分呈现案件法律结构；MiniMax 的表达更稳、更少乱码，但缺少控罪拆分和个别被告责任细节。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
若以“成本/速度”为第一目标，`or-gemini-3-flash-preview` 最快，`or-deepseek-v4-flash` 最便宜。Gemini 适合快速预处理，但要重点校正“债券配售”与程序姿态；DeepSeek 成本最低且基本准确，但需要补充摘要深度。
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
本地 `ollama-qwen3-8b` 的零费用优势明显，但本次输出存在乱码和法律表述不精确问题，建议仅作为辅助草稿，不宜直接入库。
|
||||||
Loading…
Reference in New Issue