52 lines
2.7 KiB
YAML
52 lines
2.7 KiB
YAML
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 conviction of respondents for conspiracy to defraud, challenging the Court
|
|
of Appeal's decision (CACC No. 239 of 2021) regarding the validity of the prosecution's case on the
|
|
case_object:
|
|
- criminal charges of conspiracy to defraud
|
|
- concealment of financial arrangements
|
|
- validity of placing agreements
|
|
judgment_result:
|
|
- charge: Whether the placement/sub-placement agreements were continuing connected transactions (liability
|
|
issue)
|
|
result: No view expressed. Court did not hear arguments on this matter, therefore expressed no view
|
|
as to whether they were continuing connected transactions. (See [12] of Reasons for Verdict)
|
|
judgment_summary: >-
|
|
HKSAR appealed the conviction of defendants for conspiracy to defraud, challenging the validity of prosecution's
|
|
case on concealment of financial arrangements. Core issues centered on whether agreements constituted
|
|
continuing connected transactions and if concealment justified criminal liability. The Court rejected
|
|
limiting concealment to sham transactions (Snook v London), citing Adams v The Queen, and emphasized
|
|
dishonesty as a required element. It did not address the agreements' status but up
|
|
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 criminal case, representing the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.
|
|
- entity_name: Hong Kong Stock Exchange
|
|
reason: Institution involved in the regulatory framework governing connected transactions.
|
|
- 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: Lord Jauncey of Tullichettle
|
|
reason: Served as judge in Adams v The Queen [5], articulated legal principle regarding concealment
|
|
of director's breach of duties.
|