Read the full judgment text of FCMC 85/2010 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 8 December 2016 before 馬道立 (Chief Justice), 李義 (Permanent Judge), 鄧楨 (Permanent Judge), 霍兆剛 (Permanent Judge), 賀輔明勳爵 (Non-Permanent Judge).
Criminal law – Prevention of Bribery Ordinance – Agent – Document – Conspiracy – Bribery – Attribution of knowledge – Appeal dismissed – The Court of Final Appeal considered the meaning of agent under s.9 of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, whether a board minute constitutes a document under s.9(3), and whether common law principles of attribution apply to statutory anti-bribery offences. The Court held that a person who acts for another can be an agent even without pre-existing duty, board minutes fall within the definition of document, and attribution of a director's knowledge of their own breach to the company would defeat the purpose of the anti-bribery rules. The appeal against conviction was dismissed.
Legal issues: Definition of agent under s.9 POBO · Definition of document under s.9(3) POBO · Attribution of knowledge under common law principles
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Cites 2 cases