HKSAR v. Cheng Kai Ming Charles

Case No.FAMC 66/2012
Court
FAMC
Date21 Aug 2013
Judge
Case Document
100%

FAMC No 66 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO66 OF 2012 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACC NO 96 OF 2010)

_______________________

Between:

  HKSAR Respondent
  and
  CHENG KAI MING CHARLES 鄭啟明 Applicant

_______________________

FAMC No 67 of 2012

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO67 OF 2012 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACC NO 96 OF 2010)

_______________________

Between:

  HKSAR Respondent
  and
  LI KWOK CHEUNG GEORGE 李國祥 Applicant

_______________________

FAMC No 1 of 2013

IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO1 OF 2013 (CRIMINAL)

(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACC NO 96 OF 2010)

_______________________

Between:

  HKSAR Respondent
  and
  TSANG WAI LUN WAYLAND 曾煒麟 1st Applicant
  KWOK WAI MAN NANCY 郭慧玟 2nd Applicant

_______________________

Appeal Committee: Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ,Mr Justice Bokhary NPJ
Hearing and Determination: 15 August 2013
Date of handing down Determination: 21 August 2013

________________________

DETERMINATION

________________________

Mr Justice Chan PJ:

1.As far as the substantial and grave injustice basis is concerned, all but one of the arguments are without foundation for the reason that it would involve treating the Court of Final Appeal as a second court of appeal in the normal way.

2.The other argument on substantial and grave injustice is also without foundation for the reason that it would involve the Court of Final Appeal re-visiting a question which is pre-eminently for the Court of Appeal, namely, whether or not the trial judge did in fact apply the co-conspirators’ rule.

3.As to the point of law of great general importance, we grant leave to appeal on the following question in relation to the 4th charge only:

Whether the expression “proceeds of an indictable offence” in s 25(1) of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455, is confined to money gained from the commission of an indictableoffence or, instead, extends to money used in the furtherance of such an offence.

(Patrick Chan) (Robert Tang) (Kemal Bokhary)
Permanent Judge Permanent Judge Non-Permanent Judge


Mr Bruce, Andrew, SC and Mr Hoe, Felix instructed by Wat & Co for the applicants in FAMC1/2013

Mr Blanchflower, Michael SC and Ms Wong, Maggie instructed by Michael Li for the applicant in FAMC 66/2012

Mr Khattak, SK (Kelly Lam) instructed by Lennon & Lawyers for the applicant in FAMC 67/2012

Mr Chau, Anthony, SPP of Department of Justice, for the respondent

Other Judgments in This Case

Further hearings and rulings under FAMC 66/2012