The Queen v. Yim Chor-man and Others

DCCC000241/1974

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HONG KONG

HOLDEN AT VICTORIA

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

CASE NO. 241 OF 1974

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Jones, D.J. in Court.

Date of Judgment: 14 April 1975

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. The three defendants are charged that on divers days between 1st September 1972 and 27th April 1973 they conspired together and with other persons not in custody to defraud contrary to Common Law PUN Ting-chau by divers deceptions and fraudulent means and devices of H.K.$279,000.00. There are also three Charges of theft contrary to S.9 of the Theft Ordinance.

2. Conspiracy is an agreement of two or more persons to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means.

3. In Scott v. Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis (1974) 3 All E.R. 1032 at page 1040 Lord Diplock said "Where the intended victim of a 'conspiracy to defraud' is a private individual the purpose of the conspirators must be to cause the victim economic loss by depriving him of some property or right, corporeal of incorporeal, to which he is or would or might become entitled. The intended means by which the purpose is to be achieved must be dishonest. Dishonesty of any kind is enough."

4. The facts of this case arise as a result of a scheme by the defendants and others not in custody to deprive PUN Ting-chau (to whom I shall refer as PUN) of his money by means of a swindle called Tien Sin Kuk known as the Heavenly Swindle. Tien Sin Kuk can take the form of various illegal activities such as gambling which is the most common, the importation and exportation of narcotics, and illegal immigration. In this case the method adopted was to cheat at a dice game commonly known as Dai Cheong Kwan the Noble Game. It is in effect a highly sophisticated confidence trick.

5. Following the precedent in R. v. CHAN Ngan-lun and others K.D.C. No. 106/1973 a police officer gave expert evidence about this type of fraud together with an explanation as to the way in which the game in question is played.

6. Senior Superintendent MaoMahon who gave this expert evidence said that the basic requirement for such a swindle is to select the right victim. This will depend upon a number of factors such as an assessment of the prospective victim's education, background and way of life. In other words whether he is sufficiently gullille and naive. He must of course be a man of some means.

7. The group that perpetrates the fraud consists of a minimum of five persons each of whom performs a particular role.

8. These persons are as follows:-

9. Miss Hamilton a Government Chemist carried out various tests with gambling equipment and other exhibits seized in connection with this case from the home of the first defendant and the premises of Yuan Fung Loong where the gambling games were said to have been played. These included a magnet, two dice one containing a fixed magnet, and the other a cylindrical magnet that can be easily removed. A demonstration was conducted by Miss Hamilton with a folding table seized at Yuan Fung Loong of the principles of magnetism. Pun later demonstrated how the game was played with a magnet concealed underneath the table. When the die ex. P3 was thrown on the table above the magnet which was secured underneath the table by sealing tape the number six dot would come up when it was over the north pole of the magnet and the number one dot when it was over the south pole. The reverse numbers appeared when the die ex. P5 was used.

10. Of various bundles of paper seized and examined, Miss Hamilton said that they were either the exact size of U.S. dollars in any denomination or the exact size of Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank $500 notes. From her examination she concluded that the paper had been folded for a considerable period of time.

11. The victim Pun who gave his evidence in English described in great detail the events leading up to the present Charges, and was in the witness box for over eighteen hours. He is 37 years of age, and lives with his second wife. At present he runs an import export firm but previously worked as an accountant. Pun was educated in Hong Kong. He has diplomas with the London Chamber of Commerce and the Australian Society of Accountants. From May 1968 until December 1971 he worked in Australia. He returned to Hong Kong in January 1972 and has remained here until the present time. Pun said that he is not a gambling man, and before he met the defendants he had not gambled before.

12. In August or September 1972 he saw an advertisement in either the Sing Tao Yat Po or the Wah Kiu Yat Po relating to the transfer of a seat on the Kowloon Stock Exchange. The advertisement ex. P16A reads 'PARTNERSHIP IN STOCK' Member of the Kowloon Stock Exchange requests person(s) to join as partner(s). Correspondence to be addressed to Letter Box No. 782 of this newspaper.' Pun replied to the advertisement and a few days later received a written reply from a Chan Po Fong giving a telephone number. Following a telephone call to this number Chan Po Fong asked Pun to call that evening at 7.15 p.m. at Yuan Fung Loong in Western District.

13. Pun went to the address he had been given where he met Chan Po Fong. He described the premises as a commercial office. Chan Po Fong mentioned that he had a friend with a seat on the Kowloon Stock Exchange who was looking for someone to join him in partnership for $200,000.00 but Pun said he was not personally interested. The conversation was then directed to Pun's personal particulars including his education and the time that he had spent overseas. The meeting concluded with no result having been achieved. In November 1972 Pun placed an advertisement in the Sing Tao Yat Pao for the sale of an old building in Central District. To this advertisement Pun received a few replies including one from Chan Po Fong. He communicated with Chan Po Fong who said that someone connected with his office was interested in buying the property. A meeting was then arranged at a restaurant the following day. At this meeting Pun met Chan Po Fong, and later Mr. Yim the first defendant who was introduced as Chan Po Fong's boss and the manager of Yuan Fung Loong. The first defendant said he was working for his uncle Mr. Chiang who was the proprietor of the firm. Mr. Chiang was identified in Court by Pun as the second defendant. The first defendant described Yuan Fung Loong as an import export firm doing business with firms in the Chinese Community throughout South East Asia.

14. The first defendant told Pun that a Mr. Cheung who was identified in Court as the third defendant was interested in buying the property. He said that the third defendant's wealth was in the region of $30,000,000.00 to $40,000,000.00. The third defendant was also described by the first defendant as a playboy who was leading a loose way of life.

15. Pun mentioned that he hoped to receive $560,000.00 for the building. At a subsequent meeting with Chan Po Fong and the first defendant Pun showed them a plan of the building and repeated his conditions for sale.

16. The first defendant undertook to act as a go between with the third defendant at a brokerage fee of 1% to which Pun agreed. They then went to Yuan Fung Loong where Pun was introduced to the second defendant. It was at this meeting that the second defendant informed Pun that the third defendant was his nephew. The second defendant also mentioned that he was to attend a banquet that evening to celebrate the presentation of a diamond ring by the third defendant to a lady later described as the third defendant's concubine.

17. The next day Pun went to Yuan Fung Loong again as previously arranged for the purpose of meeting the third defendant. Before the third defendant arrived the second defendant described an incident that occurred at the banquet the previous evening when a criticism had been made by one of the guests concerning the quality of the diamond ring. That guest had after the dinner issued an invitation to the others present to visit his residence in order to look at a diamond necklace.

18. The hostess was said to be out and no further reference was made to the necklace. The second defendant told Pun that he was carrying U.S.$75,000 at the time so that he could pay for the diamond necklace if the third defendant and his concubine were interested. Later the second defendant said that he went to sleep and when he awoke discovered that the U.S.$75,000 was missing. The third defendant had taken the money which he had used to pay HK$420,000 that he had lost at dice. At this time the second defendant produced several bundles of H.K. dollar notes which he said amounted to HK$420,000. Although Pun did not of course check the money he believed the second defendant's statement to be true. The third defendant eventually arrived and was introduced to Pun.

19. The proposed sale of the building was discussed and the third defendant appeared to be happy with the price although he asked for a reduction of a few thousand dollars for entertainment to which Pun agreed.

20. A further meeting was arranged for the following day when Pun saw the first and second defendants and Chan Po Fong. The second defendant raised the matter of the third defendant's gambling loss to which the first defendant suggested that the advice of an expert should be sought to ascertain if the loss had been the result of a trick.

21. The first defendant said that if it was established that there had been a trick the third defendant should be persuaded not to gamble on such games in the future. Pun expressed himself to be in sympathy with these remarks. Chan Po Fong then called in an expert.

22. Pun thought that there was nothing surprising in ascertaining whether the third defendant's loss had been as a result of a trick nor that his help had been enlisted for they had helped him by placing him in touch with the intending buyer.

23. Nevertheless Pun maintained that the actual purpose of his visit to the premises that day had been to finalise the arrangements for the sale of the building. Shortly afterwards Mr. Li Ming the expert arrived. He asked some questions concerning the incident which led to the third defendant's gambling loss and concluded from the information received that he had been the subject of a swindle.

24. In a further conversation the first and second defendants informed Pun that the third defendant was the sole surviving son of his family and had failed in accordance with Chinese custom to support his elder brother's window and children who lived in Macau. Pun said that he felt a sense of injustice, and sympathy that the third defendant had not honoured his obligations.

25. Later Mr. Li obtained a set of fixed gambling instruments which he demonstrated in the same manner as described in evidence by Miss Hamilton. Mr. Li explained that this was the way in which the third defendant had been swindled. The second defendant suggested that the matter be reported to the Police, but was dissuaded by Li.

26. During the course of the demonstration the third defendant arrived and showed an interest in the game. At this meeting the third defendant expressed his intention to gamble again at the same place where he had lost and would bring with him US$450,000 as his stake. He showed a brief case to Pun stating that it contained US$450,000 and inside Pun saw what appeared to be bundles of US$100 notes. Ultimately after some lengthy discussion between Li and the third defendant it was agreed that a game would be played with a stake of HK$400,000. After the third defendant left Li suggested that everyone else should unite together to play against the third defendant for what was described as a Certain Win. Pun expressed no doubt and stated that the object was to beat the third defendant in order to teach him a lesson. He would then be shown how he had lost at a later stage. It was agreed that 50% of the money won would be placed in the hands of the second defendant to hold in trust for the widow and the children of the third defendant's elder brother in Macau and the third defendant. The balance was to be used to set up a new business to be held in trust for the first defendant, the second defendant, Chan Po Fong, Li and Pun. When the third defendant had realized the errors of his ways the monies from the business would be used for the benefit of the third defendant and his mother.

27. Pun was to be involved in the setting up of the business for which he would be paid a salary. All those present including Pun expressed their utmost concern for the third defendant.

28. The second defendant said he did not wish to participate in the game as his nephew would be involved so he asked Pun if he would act as banker to which Pun agreed.

29. A vow to heaven was then made by the participants including Pun.

30. In respect of the stake money Pun agreed to contribute $9,000, the first defendant $30,000, Li $100,000, the second defendant about $240,000 and Chan Po Fong $8,000.

31. Pun had no hesitation in raising his share which he later handed to the second defendant. Pun said that he saw Li's money although he did not count it but did not see that of the other participants although he believed that they made their contributions.

32. Li instructed Pun in his duties as banker and before the third defendant arrived to play the game he had a number of trial hands. On each trial hand the banker won. Pun also saw Li fixed the magnet under the table.

33. Upon his arrival the third defendant brought with him what appeared to be bundles of US dollar notes which he handed to the second defendant. When the game was played Pun acted as the banker, with the third defendant seated opposite to him, the first defendant on his left and Li on his right. The second defendant was also present. It was agreed that there would be twelve hands in a game, that a player who lost would lose his bet whilst if the banker lost he would pay five times the stake placed.

34. The banker was not permitted to place a bet and more than one person could not bet on the same number. With the instructions that he had received from Li Pun was able to place the cup, having seen the bet laid by the third defendant, in such a position that the banker would always win.

35. However, in the twelve hands played the banker lost one which was approximately the sixth. On this hand the third defendant placed a bet of $250,000. The net result over the whole game was that the third defendant won $640,000. The stake for the banker amounting to $390,000 including Pun's share of $9,000 was handed over to the third defendant who then left. Pun was unable to provide a reason as to why he lost that one hand, but Li explained that it was due to a malfunctioning of the die.

36. Subsequently Pun and the other participants discussed methods to raise funds for the sum of $250,000 that was owed to the third defendant together with a fresh stake for another game. In respect of his own contribution Pun was asked by the first and second defendants to sell his building as quickly as possible, and that if the price was less than $560,000 it was agreed that he should receive $80,000 compensation with interest to make up the difference. As a result Pun sold the building for $525,000 and received a cheque for $200,000 on account of the purchase price. No compensation was ever received by Pun for selling at a lower price. Although Pun wished to pay his share by cheque Li insisted that it should be in cash. A sum of $121,000 in $500 notes was withdrawn by Pun from his bank on 16th December 1972. Of this sum Pun later handed $120,000 to the second defendant at Yuan Fung Loong in the presence of the first defendant and Chan Po Fong. Pun said that Li contributed $80,000 but the second defendant was experiencing difficulty in arrangements that he was making to raise $400,000. However, he eventually contributed $40,000. The third defendant unexpectedly came to Yuan Fung Loong the next day, and demanded the balance due to him which was paid over by the second defendant. Pun believes that the third defendant received about $240,000 in $500 notes which were tied up in bundles.

37. On about 20th December 1972 Pun attended another meeting at Yuan Fung Loong with the first defendant, Li and Chan Po Fong when a stake for another game was discussed. Li suggested that he could obtain counterfeit US dollars, but Pun disagreed.

38. Eventually in March 1973 the second defendant in a telephone conversation with Pun purporting to be from Singapore said that he had sold a rubber plantation in Malaysia for Straits $800,000 and had received a deposit of $160,000.

39. At a meeting at Yuan Fung Loong on about 10th March 1973 Pun saw the first defendant, second defendant, Chan Po Fong and Li where a discussion took place for another stake. The second defendant said he had Straits $100,000 the equivalent of HK$200,000. Li hoped to raise $200,000. Neither the first defendant nor Chan Po Fong was able to raise any money. Pun was asked to contribute HK$160,000. Pun finally agreed to contribute $150,000 which sum he withdrew in cash from his bank on 24th March 1973. This sum was handed to the second defendant who placed it in a safe deposit box that he had rented at the Bank of Canton Western Branch. Pun was told that the other monies to be contributed had also been placed in the safe deposit box and he saw bundles of $500 notes in the box, but he did not count them. Again Pun was convinced from what he had been told that there was no chance of losing at the game.

40. The second game took place on 28th March 1973 at Yuan Fung Loong when the third defendant said he had US$500,000. The third defendant opened a brief case as he had done on the previous occasion and Pun saw bundles of U.S. $100 notes, but neither he nor the others present counted them. The second defendant produced the stake money at the third defendant's request, and said it amounted to HK$400,000.

41. Exactly the same rules and procedures were adopted as in the first game and with the same players. The banker won the first few hands, and then lost to the third defendant when he placed a bet which Pun believed to be HK$320,000. Accordingly the third defendant won $1,600,000.

42. After the loss Li explained to Pun that the piece of metal had come out of the die due to the warm humid weather.

43. The net result was that the third defendant won $440,000 which winnings were handed to him by the second defendant leaving a balance of $40,000 outstanding.

44. Pun attended several subsequent meetings with the first defendant and Li. He learnt that Li was working for a supplier of raw opium. Li again raised the question of buying counterfeit U.S. notes, but Pun did not agree. Until this time Pun's suspicions so far as the three defendants are concerned had not been aroused, but his feelings towards Li had now changed.

45. On the 22nd April 1973 Pun received a mysterious visit from three people whom he had never seen nor heard of before. One of the three said he was a detective. Pun was informed by them that he had been swindled, and it was apparent to him that they were aware of the relevant details.

46. They offered their services to recover his losses. After some negotiation Pun agreed to pay 40% to them of any monies that they were able to recover.

47. It was only after this visit that Pun realised that he had been swindled. During the course of negotiations that subsequently took place Pun spoke on one occasion on the telephone to the first defendant. He alleges that the first defendant admitted taking part in the conspiracy to cheat him and that he was fortunate not to have been cheated of all his money.

48. A copy of a note written by Pun authorising the negotiations on his behalf to be conducted was produced as ex. P7. The note says 'I hereby authorise Wong Hung (one of the three strangers) to press for payment of business capital HK$280,000 exactly from Li Ming and Mr. Yim responsible persons of Yuan Fung Loong.' Sgd Pun Ting Chau 23rd April 1973.

49. Pun denied that he had ever entered into any legitimate business partnership with the members of Yuan Fung Loong.

50. A figure of $50,000 was finally agreed to be paid to Pun by way of compensation. Prior to agreeing this sum Li had indicated that if it was not accepted 'he could fix things up'.

51. On 24th April 1973 Pun went with the three strangers to Yuan Fung Loong where he saw the first defendant and Li. The first defendant repeated the admission that he had made to Pun previously on the telephone. The first defendant produced a document in Chinese which Pun in evidence in chief said was to the effect that he had received $279,000 as repayment of capital consequent upon his retirement from a tourist business with Li, first defendant, second defendant, Chan Po Fong and the third defendant. The note was signed by Pun witnessed by Wong Hung and handed to the first defendant. The note ex. PD1 was produced on behalf of first and second defendants in cross-examination and corroborates Pun's evidence except that the third defendant is not mentioned in the document. He said the contents were not precisely those that he saw at the time but I do not consider that there is any material significance in this evidence. Pun denied that he received $279,000 for the reasons contended in the note. He was informed that it was customary in this type of negotiation. Pun received $10,000 on this ocoasion from the first defendant and a few days later the balance of $40,000. As arranged Pun gave 40% of these amounts to the three negotiators.

52. On 2nd October 1974 Pun attended an identification parade at Police Headquarters where he identified the first, second and third defendants.

53. In answer to a question in cross-examination Pun was told that the third defendant was keen on gambling but was ignorant. This was the reason why he considered that the manner of play would not be obvious to the third defendant although it might be obvious to an experienced player.

54. PW7 Detective Chief Inspector Wong gave evidence of a search carried out at the premises of the first defendant on 1st October 1974. He produced numerous exhibits that were seized including the gambling equipment and the bundles of paper referred to by Miss Hamilton and a photostat copy of the note of authorization to Wong Hung to which I have referred earlier. He also produced two statements made by the first defendant to which no objection was raised as to admissibility. This witness subsequently carried out a search at the premises of Yuan Fung Loong. He produced as exhibits various items that he seized including a blue vase containing bundles of paper similar to those found at the first defendant's home. Detective Senior Inspector Tse gave evidence of a search that was carried out at the home of the third defendant where nothing of significance was found. Whilst at the premises the third defendant said spontaneously to this witness 'it must be that bloody Pun'. I accept that this statement was made.

55. At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution none of the defendants elected to give evidence nor were any witnesses called on their behalf.

56. In essence the Crown's case is that whilst Pun was induced to believe by the first and second defendants and others to participate in games of dice with the intention of defrauding the third defendant which if it was true would amount to a conspiracy the actual conspiracy was directed against Pun by the three defendants and others.

57. It is well established that in order to prove the existence of a conspiracy it will generally be by way of inference deduced from certain criminal acts of the accused, committed pursuant to an apparent criminal purpose in common between them.

58. The issues to be determined in this case hinge almost entirely upon the evidence that was given by Pun. There is of course other evidence, but suffice it to say that if I do not believe Pun the Crown's case must obviously fail.

59. Pun gave evidence as I have said for approximately eighteen hours and over a period of 6 days. I found him to be a man of intelligence who spoke good English. He was very cautious in giving his evidence and was anxious to recapture as much detail as possible. At times particularly during cross-examination he was very slow to answer questions but having seen the witness I do not draw any unfavourable conclusion.

60. Some of the matters to which he referred were not wholly satisfactory. In particular when he first saw Chan Po Fong concerning the seat on the Kowloon Stock Exchange he said it was not precisely as advertised. This was not however borne out in the copy of the advertisement that was produced.

61. Further his contention that he was influenced by altruistic motives to join in the scheme to defraud the third defendant and use part of the winnings for the third defendant's sister-in-law and children whom he had never met must be subjected to the closest scrutiny before it can be accepted. At first sight doubt must also be cast upon the trust placed by Pun in the first and second defendants.

62. Mr. Chang who was at his persuasive best raised other matters that he submitted were inherently improbable including the manner in which the game was played. I have considered all these points very carefully.

63. Mr. Chang further submitted some calculations to show that it was a mathematical impossibility for the third defendant to win $250,000 on the 6th or 7th hand if as Pun said in cross-examination the third defendant doubled his bets until the winning bet. However, the basis for these calculations was not put to Pun in cross-examination. In any event the evidence as to which hand the winning bet was placed was only approximate whilst the amount of the win although specifically mentioned must be taken to be approximate. I find no merit in this argument.

64. It was suggested and demonstrated to Pun in cross-examination that although he had several practice sessions as banker he did not carry out his instructions skilfully enough with the result that the third defendant secured his two wins.

65. However, having regard to the evidence given by Miss Hamilton I reject this contention. It is significant that to this day Pun does not know how he lost. Undoubtedly it would have been wiser for Pun to have reported the matter immediately to the Police instead of agreeing to use the services of the three negotiators, but taking into account the predicament with which he found himself I do not consider that it was surprising that he adopted these steps in an attempt to salvage something from the wreckage.

66. In assessing Pun's credibility I take into account the fact that he behaved very foolishly in becoming involved in such an idiotic venture, and that his participation on his own evidence was intended indirectly to benefit himself. His participation was reprehensible.

67. I am clearly of the opinion that he was in fact motivated by greed and not for altruistic reasons. Nevertheless I am satisfied having observed his demeanour over a long period of time that he is a man of extreme gullibility and naivete. Despite the reservations that I have expressed I am quite satisfied that his evidence overall was substantially true. His evidence was not materially affected in cross-examination.

68. I shall now deal with the case of the three defendants. Although none of them gave evidence I draw no incriminating inference from their failure to do so. However, each of them made statements to the Police which were produced in evidence without objection being raised as to their admissibility.

69. The first defendant admitted that he knew Pun at the material time and that it was at his suggestion that a tourist business be set up. He said that the business was not successful with the result that Pun withdrew his capital. The first defendant denied that he had ever gambled with Pun.

70. The first defendant in his statement explained that the wooden covers, dice and bundles of paper found at his home were used by his children. This explanation cannot be accepted to be true. Miss Hamilton's evidence that the paper had been folded for a long time also conflicts with this evidence. The first defendant at the identification parade said that he was an old friend of Pun with whom he was in business. The second defendant also admitted in his statement that he knew Pun and had gambled with him at Yuan Fung Loong during the period in question. He was also involved in the setting up of the tourist business to which the first defendant referred in his statement. At the identification parade the second defendant said he was recognized as he had played mahjong with Pun.

71. The third defendant in his statement made after the identification parade said he could not recognize Pun very well and could not say for sure if he knew him. At the identification parade the third defendant denied Pun's allegation that he had played the role of the prodigal son.

72. In directing myself to the inferences that may be drawn in this case I have borne in mind the words of Huggins J. in Chan Yuet Kwan & Chan Yiu Kuen v. R. C.A. 212/1973 'An inference of guilt may not properly be drawn from primary facts unless it is the only inference which can reasonably be drawn from those facts. Nor can any combination of inferences amount to proof of guilt unless in each instance the only reasonable inference which can be drawn from the facts on which it is based is one of guilt, for where primary facts admit of two inferences one of guilt and one of innocence, they can give rise to no more than suspicion and if suspicion be added to suspicion the total can be no more than suspicion.'

73. In so far as the first defendant is concerned gambling equipment, bundles of paper fitting exactly the size of U.S. dollar notes of all denominations and Hong Kong & Shanghai Bank notes $500 and the photostat copy of the note authorising Wong Hung to press for payment of $280,000 business capital was found at his premises by the Police. Bundles of paper were also found in the blue vase at Yuan Fung Loong.

74. There was no evidence that any business is carried on at the premises of Yuan Fung Loong and the first defendant in one of his statements said that it has not done any for a long time. The firm is clearly used as a front by the defendants for their nefarious activites. The note of authorisation is undoubtedly a subterfuge and I have no hesitation in accepting Pun's evidence that it was drawn up for the reasons that he gave.

75. I accept that Pun had no business relations with any of the defendants either tourist or otherwise.

76. By themselves possession of the items mentioned can be capable of an innocent explanation but having accepted Pun in substance as a witness of truth the only reasonable inference to be drawn is for the purposes alleged by the Crown. Such evidence clearly corroborates that given by Pun so far as the first defendant is concerned.

77. The second defendant in his statement admits that he knew Pun and gambled with him at Yuan Fung Loong. He also mentioned the tourist business to which I have referred earlier.

78. The third defendant also referred to the tourist business and that Yuan Fung Loong was used as a temporary office. The third defendant clearly knew Pun and I find corroboration in the remark that he made to Inspector Tse. An innocent explanation for his presence was submitted in that he merely came to the premises of Yuan Fung Loong to gamble and left after he had won. I do not consider that it is reasonable to infer that it was a mere coincidence that the third defendant should win on the two occasions referred to. It was a highly skilled, deliberate and calculated swindle by each of the three defendants and their confederates.

79. A crucial part of the evidence is why Pun was each time selected to act as the banker in spite of the loss that occurred during the first game. If the third defendant had been the intended victim Li as the expert was the logical person to be the banker. The only reasonable inference that can be deduced is that Pun was the subject matter of the conspiracy.

80. On their own the acts of the defendants may not appear to be incriminating, but considered as a whole the facts cannot admit of any other inference being fairly accepted than that there was a conspiracy by the three defendants, and others not in custody to defraud Pun.

81. As a result I find each of the three defendants guilty of the offence of conspiracy as charged. I am further satisfied that the second, third and fourth charges against all three defendants have been proved. At the time of the offences they clearly came within the basic definition of theft set out in section 2 of the Theft Ordinance.

Representation:

Mr. Alderdice, C.C. for Crown

Mr. YEUNG of (L.S. SHUN & Co.) for 1^st & 2^nd Accused

Mr. Denis Chang (Tong & Ip) for 3^rd Accused