香港特別行政區 訴 劉偉亮及另一人

On 27 August 2026, Deputy Judge Cheng Nim-tsz of the District Court handed down judgment in HKSAR v Lau Wai Leong & Another (DCCC 1293/2024, [2026] HKDC 1501), acquitting both defendants of conspiracy for an agent to accept advantage under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (Cap. 201) §§9(1)(a) and 12(1), read with the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) §§159A and 159C. Mr Luk Chun-kit and Mr Hung Kin, instructed by Lu Wai Keung & Co., acted for the successful defendants.

The prosecution alleged that D1, Lau Wai Leong, Sales Director at ASM Hong Kong Limited (a subsidiary of ASMPT Limited), conspired with D2, Wong Yuk Yan (a former ASM Senior Sales Manager who had left in July 2019), and Xiao Biao, the controlling person of Shenzhen Chaoguang Technology Co. Ltd. (超光), to accept approximately HK$6.06 million from Xiao Biao in return for D1 helping Chaoguang become and remain an ASM distributor. The alleged conspiracy period ran from sometime in 2019 to 10 January 2023.

The case turned almost entirely on P180, a collection of WeChat, WhatsApp, voice messages, screenshots and Excel images extracted from D1's devices, covering communications between D1, D2, Xiao Biao and D1's wife between October 2019 and January 2023, supplemented by D2's two cautioned video-recorded interviews.

Holding

The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of any conspiracy agreement between D1, D2 and Xiao Biao. Specifically:

(1) The messages, while containing suspicious references to "20%" or "兩成" and profit-sharing, were ambiguous and could plausibly refer to other matters such as investment projects, shareholdings, or arrangements with Mr Li Guoping (the founder of Hongli, a major end-user), rather than a kickback tied to ASM business (§§72-73, 81-83).

(2) Xiao Biao and D2 lacked motive to participate: Xiao Biao already held the Hongli account and had no need to pay D1 to secure distributor status; D2 had no identifiable benefit (§56).

(3) D2's responses in his second cautioned interview, including his use of "應該" (should be) when describing the meaning of "20%", and his denial that D1 had received money from Chaoguang or Xiao Biao, did not establish his knowing participation in any criminal agreement (§§118-120).

(4) There was no direct evidence that Xiao Biao had paid any advantage to D1; the HK$328,000 cash deposits into D1's HSBC account in late January 2022 could not be traced to Xiao Biao or Chaoguang (§§123-124).

(5) The post-incident communications on 10-11 January 2023, when D1 was questioned by ASM's compliance department and resigned, were equally consistent with two people reacting to a sudden investigation and discussing how to respond (§§103, 107, 115).

The court accepted that, had a conspiracy been proved, the other elements would have been made out: D1 was an agent of ASM, his recommendation of Chaoguang as distributor was connected to ASM's business, and ASM's zero-tolerance policy on kickbacks meant any such arrangement would prejudice ASM's reputational interests (§§127-133).

Both defendants were acquitted.

For prosecutors building corruption cases on circumstantial messaging evidence, this judgment is a caution: ambiguous references to percentages and profit-sharing in private chats, even when read alongside a defendant's senior position and a distributor's commercial success, will not bridge the gap to proof of a criminal agreement beyond reasonable doubt. Defence practitioners handling similar cases should note the court's willingness to dissect message exchanges line by line and to credit innocent alternative explanations for seemingly incriminating language.