Hksar v Ching Kai Chiu, Johny

Court:High Court (Hong Kong)
Judgement Number:HCMA648/2001
Judgment Date:22 Jul 2002
HCMA000648/2001 HKSAR v. CHING KAI CHIU, JOHNY

HCMA000648/2001

HCMA 648/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 648 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 3812/2000)

____________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
CHING KAI CHIU, JOHNY Appellant

____________

Coram: Deputy High Court Judge E Toh in Court

Date of Hearing: 13 June 2002

Date of Delivery of Judgment: 22 July 2002

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

1. The Appellant was convicted after trial as agent soliciting an advantage contrary to Section 9(1)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap. 201, he was sentenced to 8 months' imprisonment. He now appeals against both his conviction and sentence.

Against Conviction

2. At all material times, the Appellant was the chairman of the Owners Incorporation of Workingberg Commercial Building in North Point and a shareholder and director of Artfield Advertising Limited. At the same time, PW1 was the property manager employed by A.G. Wilkinson & Associates Property Management Limited. Some time at the end of 1998, the owners committee decided to dismiss the then management company of Workingberg and to invite tenders for the management of Workingberg in January 1999. In January 1999, the incorporated owners then placed an advertisement in the newspapers inviting tenders from companies interested in becoming the management company for Workingberg. Wilkinson was one of the tenderers for this contract.

3. PW1, who was the 2nd Defendant and had pleaded guilty in earlier proceedings, gave evidence that sometime in December 1998, the Appellant had telephoned him to ask for his advice as to the procedure relating to the dismissal of the management company. PW1 orally advised the Appellant and also faxed him some documentary information. A few days later, the Appellant called on PW1 at his office, also present at this meeting were two subordinates of PW1, that is PW8 and PW13. The Appellant presented his card to PW1 and PW1 noticed that the Appellant was a director of Artfield. PW1 felt that the Appellant's main purpose in this meeting was more to promote his own business rather than to make enquiries about the management contract matters. Exhibit P22 is a letter signed by the Appellant as chairman of the Incorporated Owners inviting Wilkinson to tender for the management contract.

4. A few days later, the Appellant visited Wilkinson's office but PW1 did not wish to see him, and told his subordinates PW8 and PW13 to see him instead, the reason being that PW1 felt that the visit by the Appellant was to promote his company Artfield rather than to discuss any matters dealing with the management contract. Subsequently, in the course of the meeting, PW1 joined in and the Appellant promoted his own company's printing of Chinese New Year accessories. PW1 felt that, in order for Wilkinson to successfully obtain the contract, the Appellant's influence would help them, as in a previous meeting, the Appellant had informed him that most of the members of the incorporated owners would listen to him. So in...

To continue reading

Request your trial