Read the full judgment text of CACC 000145/2003 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 20 January 2005.
1. The first applicant Sau Ming and the second applicant Lo Pui Shing (also known as Leo Lo), who were respectively D2 and D3 at trial, faced a number of charges of accepting an advantage as an agent contrary to sections 9(1)(a), 9(1)(b) and 12(1) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance, Cap 201. D1 Ho Siu-hoi faced 10 charges of conspiracy to offer advantage to an agent, contrary to common law or (as the case may be) section 159A of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, and sections 9(2)(a), 9(2)(b) a
Cited by 3 cases · Cites 1 case