Read the full judgment text of CACC 000003/1990 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 6 March 1990 before Silke VP, Kempster JA, Hunter JA.
Criminal law – bribery – Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap 201) s.9(1)(a) – agent accepting advantage as reward for doing or forbearing to do act in relation to principal's affairs – respondent Chairman of Stock Exchange of Hong Kong and Convener of Listing Sub-Committee – preferential allocations of Cathay Pacific Airways and Novel Enterprises shares to Fullpath Ltd shortly after listings approved in principle – Complex Commercial Crimes Ordinance (Cap 394) s.22(1) – application for discharge – test to be applied – whether stricter 'only inference' test or ordinary 'no case to answer' test – Court of Appeal affirms Galbraith test – whether a jury properly directed could, may or might be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt of necessary inferences – appeals – indictment – sufficiency of particularisation of 'advantage' – 'preferential allocation' of shares constitutes 'property' under s.2(1)(a) POBO – appeal allowed – orders of discharge quashed – respondent to stand trial on counts 2 and 3.
Legal issues: Test for discharge under s.22(1) Complex Commercial Crimes Ordinance · Whether a prima facie case was established on counts 2 and 3 · Sufficiency of particularisation of 'advantage' in the indictment
Outcome: Appeal allowed; orders for discharge on counts 2 and 3 quashed; respondent to be tried on counts 2 and 3 of the indictment dated 7 August 1989.
Cited by 1 case