Lawyer Cheng Tze Kui Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 事務律師鄭子駒專業失當罪成
Findings and order:
6 September 2011
The Respondent, at all the material times, was the sole proprietor of Messrs TK Cheng & Co (‘the Firm’) and the Firm had two offices with the main office at Mongkok (‘Mongkok Office’) and a branch office at Central, Hong Kong (‘Hong Kong Office’).
On 18 May 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following 11 complaints against the Respondent proved on his own admission:
1st ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in which the Respondent, on 27 April 2006, had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Hong Kong Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Mongkok Office on behalf of clients of Hong Kong Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Hong Kong Office resulting in a debit balance of HK$324,889 recorded under ‘TEMP-HK OFFICE CLT’.
2nd ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in which the Respondent, on 27 April 2006, had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Mongkok Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Hong Kong Office on behalf of clients of Mongkok Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Mongkok Office resulting in a credit balance of HK$246,043.06 recorded under ‘MK-CLT’S A/C’.
3rd ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in which the Respondent, on 29 January 2007 had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Hong Kong Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Mongkok Office on behalf of clients of Hong Kong Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Hong Kong Office resulting in a debit balance of HK$308,729 recorded under ‘TEMP-HK OFFICE CLT’.
4th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that, on 29 January 2007, the total clients’ money recorded in the client ledgers was greater than the total clients’ money recorded in the clients’ cash books by HK$733,707.
5th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, failed to ensure no debit balance occurred in clients’ account in the Mongkok Office. There were a total of 13 debit entries.
6th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Mongkok Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Hong Kong Office on behalf of clients of Mongkok Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Mongkok Office resulting in a credit balance of HK$508,145.95 recorded under ‘MK-CLT'S A/C’.
7th Complaint Breach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, failed to ensure no debit balance occurred in clients’ account in the Hong Kong Office. There were a total of five debit entries.
8th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) and 10(2) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, upon making 62 entries of transfer of money from the clients’ bank accounts in the total sum of HK$733,707 to the office bank account, failed to record any entries of transfer in the corresponding client ledgers and as a result the total clients’ money recorded in the client ledgers was greater than the total clients’ money recorded in the clients’ cash books by HK$733,707.
9th ComplaintThe Respondent, on 23 April 2007 was in persistent failure to comply with Principle 4.10 of the Guide and Rule 2(e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules in that the bills prepared by the Firm did not contain sufficient information to identify the matters to which the bills related or contain erroneous information.
10th ComplaintBreach of Section 8(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) in that the Respondent had failed to deliver to the Council of the Law Society on or before 31 October 2006 an Accountant’s Report of the Firm for the accounting period from 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006 and the said report was late for one year and 29 days.
11th ComplaintBreach of Section 8(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) in that the Respondent had failed to deliver to the Council of the Law Society on or before 31 October 2008 an Accountant’s Report of the Firm for the accounting period from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008 and the said report was late for one month and 16 days.
The Tribunal, having considered the Respondent&’s mitigation, ordered that:
6 September 2011
The Respondent, at all the material times, was the sole proprietor of Messrs TK Cheng & Co (‘the Firm’) and the Firm had two offices with the main office at Mongkok (‘Mongkok Office’) and a branch office at Central, Hong Kong (‘Hong Kong Office’).
On 18 May 2011, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following 11 complaints against the Respondent proved on his own admission:
1st ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in which the Respondent, on 27 April 2006, had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Hong Kong Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Mongkok Office on behalf of clients of Hong Kong Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Hong Kong Office resulting in a debit balance of HK$324,889 recorded under ‘TEMP-HK OFFICE CLT’.
2nd ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in which the Respondent, on 27 April 2006, had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Mongkok Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Hong Kong Office on behalf of clients of Mongkok Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Mongkok Office resulting in a credit balance of HK$246,043.06 recorded under ‘MK-CLT’S A/C’.
3rd ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in which the Respondent, on 29 January 2007 had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Hong Kong Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Mongkok Office on behalf of clients of Hong Kong Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Hong Kong Office resulting in a debit balance of HK$308,729 recorded under ‘TEMP-HK OFFICE CLT’.
4th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that, on 29 January 2007, the total clients’ money recorded in the client ledgers was greater than the total clients’ money recorded in the clients’ cash books by HK$733,707.
5th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, failed to ensure no debit balance occurred in clients’ account in the Mongkok Office. There were a total of 13 debit entries.
6th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, had failed to keep properly written up client ledgers in the Mongkok Office in that transactions of payments of client’s money paid by the Hong Kong Office on behalf of clients of Mongkok Office were not recorded in the client ledgers of the Mongkok Office resulting in a credit balance of HK$508,145.95 recorded under ‘MK-CLT'S A/C’.
7th Complaint Breach of Rule 10(1) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, failed to ensure no debit balance occurred in clients’ account in the Hong Kong Office. There were a total of five debit entries.
8th ComplaintBreach of Rule 10(1) and 10(2) of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent, on 29 January 2007, upon making 62 entries of transfer of money from the clients’ bank accounts in the total sum of HK$733,707 to the office bank account, failed to record any entries of transfer in the corresponding client ledgers and as a result the total clients’ money recorded in the client ledgers was greater than the total clients’ money recorded in the clients’ cash books by HK$733,707.
9th ComplaintThe Respondent, on 23 April 2007 was in persistent failure to comply with Principle 4.10 of the Guide and Rule 2(e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules in that the bills prepared by the Firm did not contain sufficient information to identify the matters to which the bills related or contain erroneous information.
10th ComplaintBreach of Section 8(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) in that the Respondent had failed to deliver to the Council of the Law Society on or before 31 October 2006 an Accountant’s Report of the Firm for the accounting period from 1 August 2005 to 31 July 2006 and the said report was late for one year and 29 days.
11th ComplaintBreach of Section 8(1) of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) in that the Respondent had failed to deliver to the Council of the Law Society on or before 31 October 2008 an Accountant’s Report of the Firm for the accounting period from 1 August 2007 to 31 July 2008 and the said report was late for one month and 16 days.
The Tribunal, having considered the Respondent&’s mitigation, ordered that:
- the Respondent be censured;
- the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 1st Complaint;
- the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 2nd Complaint;
- the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 3rd Complaint;
- the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 4th Complaint;
- the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 5th Complaint;
- the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 6th Complaint;
- the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 7th Complaint;
- the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 8th Complaint;
- the Respondent be fined HK$10,000 in relation to the 9th Complaint;
- the Respondent be fined HK$10,000 in relation to the 10th Complaint;
- the Respondent be fined HK$15,000 in relation to the 11th Complaint;
- the Respondent is to pay the amounts above totalling HK$75,000 by monthly instalments with a first instalment of HK$5000 to be paid on 1 October 2011 and the balance of HK$70,000 by 14 monthly instalments of HK$5000 each to be paid on the first day of each month; and
- the Respondent shall pay HK$160,000 to the Law Society and HK$27,000 to the Clerk in full and final settlement of costs of these proceedings, the said sum of HK$187,000 shall be paid by monthly instalments with a first instalment of HK$7000 be paid on 1 October 2011 and the balance of HK$180,000 by 18 monthly instalments of HK$10,000 each to be paid on the first day of each month. In the event that the Respondent fails to pay any instalment on time, the outstanding amount of costs becomes due and payable by him immediately.
沒有留言:
張貼留言