Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Hksar v Chung Man Chi

Judgment Cited authorities 1 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date31 May 2012
Year2012
Judgement NumberCACC334/2005
Subject MatterCriminal Appeal
CourtCourt of Appeal (Hong Kong)
CACC334/2005 HKSAR v. CHUNG MAN CHI

CACC 334/2005

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 334 OF 2005

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC NO. 284 OF 2005)

__________________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent

and
CHUNG MAN CHI Applicant

__________________

Before : Hon Hartmann, Lunn JJA and Saw J in Court
Date of Hearing : 25 May 2012
Date of Judgment: 25 May 2012
Date of Reasons for Judgment : 31 May 2012

_____________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_____________________________

Hon Saw J (giving the reasons for judgment of the Court)

1. The applicant was convicted on 16 July 2005 after a trial in the District Court of

(i) one charge of fraud contrary to section 16A of the Theft Ordinance Cap 210 (Charge 1)

(ii) two charges of Theft contrary to section 9 of the Theft Ordinance Cap 210 (Charges 2&3)

2. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for 3 years and 6 months:

3. On 2 August 2005 a Notice of Appeal against conviction (Form XI) was filed.

4. On 4 August 2005 Messrs Raymond Chan, Kenneth Yuen & Co solicitors filed a Notice to Act on his behalf. On 28 October 2005 they wrote to the Registrar to advise that they were no longer instructed by the applicant and that he was applying for Legal Aid.

5. On 16 January 2006 his application for Legal Aid was refused.

6. On 25 January 2006 the applicant filed a Notice of Abandonment (form VII) wherein he abandoned his application for leave to appeal against his convictions.

7. The applicant was released from prison on 30 August 2007 having served his sentence.

8. On 25 May 2012 we dismissed his application that his abandonment of his appeals on 25 January 2006 be treated as a nullity. We said then that we would give our reasons in due course. These are our reasons.

The convictions

9. It was the prosecution’s case in the lower court that in the period covered by the three charges namely December 2001 to December 2004, the applicant had systematically deceived the victim into making payments to him and into a bank account in his wife’s name. The deceptions were unsophisticated but the victim was obviously naive. Over $2,000,000 was paid or transferred.

10. It was the evidence of the victim that he and the applicant met in September 2001 when they were both hospitalised. They struck up a friendship. The victim wanted to arrange to bring his elder son to Hong Kong from the Mainland. The applicant falsely represented to him that he could facilitate this. Over a period of 12 months the victim paid to the applicant no less than $250,000 cash. Needless to say the applicant made no attempt to arrange for the victim’s son to come to Hong Kong. This was the substance of the 1st Charge.

11. Having gained the trust of the victim the applicant began to borrow substantial sums of money from him which were transferred into the bank account of the applicant’s wife. The reason why the victim was prepared to advance him money was that he had been assured by the applicant that he had an older wealthy brother living in Greece who would ensure that he was repaid. There was no older brother in Greece. Throughout the period of the deception the applicant regularly telephoned the victim and assumed the identity variously of

(i) his older brother

(ii) his older brother’s son

(iii) the administrators of the estate of the applicant (the victim was told that he had died in the United States of America and had left a vast estate to the victim).

12. The 2nd charge of theft alleged that between August 2002 and December 2002, the victim had paid into a bank account as directed by the applicant the sum of $221,672.

13. The 3rd charge of theft alleged that between January 2003 and December 2004, the victim had paid into a bank account as directed by the applicant the sum of $1,674,182.

14. The deceptions were revealed when the victim asked his physiotherapist at the Tai Po Hospital for financial assistance. He explained that he needed the money to obtain the administration of the applicant’s estate. The physiotherapist told the victim that she had seen the applicant just one month before. A report was made to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT