大狀唐煒明 藏毒罰四千 - Barrister Ming Tong Fined HK$4,000 for Possession of Drugs

Counsel Ming W M Tong Convicted and Fined HK$4,000 - 大律師唐煒明藏毒罪成立罰款四千

 

(Source: http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20110803/00176_036.html)

 

對於唐煒明大律師 (Barrister Ming Tong) 會否被停牌，大律師公會執委會表示，會慎重考慮任何大律師導致定罪的行為，是否構成專業失當，並交由大律師紀律審裁組作出聆訊，再決定是否對有關大律師作出譴責、暫時吊銷執業資格、支付罰款，甚或從大律師登記冊上剔除其姓名。

 

(Source: http://www.rthk.org.hk/rthk/news/expressnews/20110802/news_20110802_55_774251.htm)

(Source: http://paper.wenweipo.com/2011/08/03/HK1108030012.htm)

Hong Kong Judge Criticized Barrister Kevin Hon, Solicitor Gloria Chan & Co, and Defendant Navin Kumar Aggarwal for Bad Preparation

31.  This application [made by Hong Kong Barrister Kevin Hon, instructed by Gloria Chan & Co Solicitors, for the Defendant NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL] shows a lack of foundation and was badly prepared for hearing.  The 3^rd affirmation of the solicitor for the Defendant was filed the day before the hearing but a copy was handed up to me only on the morning of the hearing.  The bundle for hearing was lodged in the afternoon before the hearing after I have already read the file.  The bundle did not contain all the pertinent documents including the Injunction Order and the Plaintiff’s affidavit supporting the application for the Injunction.  The skeleton submission was faxed in only in the morning 18 minutes before the hearing when there was no opportunity for me to read it...

(Source 1: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=77832&QS=%28%7BNAVIN+KUMAR+AGGARWAL%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU)

(Source 2: http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2011/555.html)

(Source 3: http://hkremembers.blogspot.hk/2014/05/high-court-critticizied-barrister-kevin-hon-solicitor-gloria-chan-and-defendant-navin-kumar-aggarwal-for-bad-preparation.html)

(HCA 1061/2011 - a Decision of Hong Kong Deputy High Court Judge Queeny Au-Yeung in 2011)

楊潤康律師包攬訴訟罪名成立 - Lawyer and Solicitor Gary Y H Yeong Guilty of Champerty

LAWYER AND SOLICITOR YEONG YUN HONG, GARY GUILTY OF CHAMPERTY

身為律師行合夥人的一對律師夫婦聯同一間顧問公司的男顧問，在2001年11月至2007年4月期間，就26宗交通及工傷意外的民事索償中涉嫌「包攬訴訟」，當中涉及賠償金達700萬元，3人在區院被控26項分享訴訟成果罪。

法庭今日裁決，任職顧問的首被告葉漢明及任職律師的次被告楊潤康，被裁定全部罪名成立，第三被告(即次被告妻子羅婉清)則脫罪。法官指，首被告及次被告的涉案過程有包攬訴訟元素，兩人都是明知而參與，第三被告在過程中雖有協助，但不肯定是否知情，在疑點下判罪名不成立。

(Source: http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140422/bkn-20140422140424466-0422_00822_001.html)

男教師彭錦民被控5項非禮罪 - 男教師彭錦民承認曾經逼自己的15歲女學生替他口交直至射精

男教師於去年6月與女友分手後，與自己任班主任的班中15歲女生互訴心聲，未幾兩人發展成師生戀。兩人在三個月內先後於籃球場、教師的寓所及西貢郊野公園親熱，期間教師對女生摸胸，又逼女生替他口交直至射精。

教師彭錦民（27歲）原被控5項非禮罪，控方今就其中兩項不提證供起訴，被告承認餘下3項控罪，裁判官將押至4月30日判刑，期間領取被告的背景報告。

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140416/52388503)

香港國際社會服務社告另一難民援助組織 Vision First Limited 誹謗

Vision First Limited Sued for Alleged Defamation

 

受本港社會福利署委託、為在港有確切需要的酷刑聲請者、難民和尋求庇護人士提供援助服務的香港國際社會服務社，昨日入稟高等法院，控告另一難民援助組織Vision First Limited在互聯網及以文章發布內含誹謗服務社的言論，該社現要求法庭頒令禁制相關誹謗行為，並要求被告賠償。

原告香港國際社會服務社在入稟狀中指，被告Vision First Limited從去年八月二十五日至今年三月十一日期間，重複在其網頁上發布誹謗原告的言論，並於去年八月十八日發布性質雷同的文章。原告要求法庭頒令禁制被告再作出類似的誹謗行為，並要求被告就已作出的誹謗行為作賠償。

香港國際社會服務社昨為入稟一事發出聲明指，該社在提供服務時並沒有任何得益，當合約完結時，該社必須將餘款全數歸還社會福利署，絕無剋扣津貼，而貪污之指控更無事實根據；該社在安排食物援助方面符合既定招標及監管機制；該社服務質素亦受到社署嚴密監管。

(Source: http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140415/bkn-20140415011620307-0415_00822_001.html)

馬惜珍捲案 律政司表明證據不足會無罪釋放

三十六年前高等法院一宗案件的其中一名涉案人士馬惜珍先生，透過律師向高院提出申請，要求撤銷逮捕令，案件昨在高院聆訊。律政司在庭上承認基於現時檢控證據不足，申請人即使出庭應訊，控方也將會不提出證據檢控他，他將會無罪釋放，故對申請保持中立。

代表申請人的資深大律師麥高義稱，申請人涉及一宗案件與另外八人一同被檢控，裁判署批准申請人擔保，但申請人未有在案件開審時出庭應訊，高院法官O’Connor遂於一九七八年向申請人發出逮捕令，命令警方拘捕、扣留申請人及把申請人帶到法官本人席前，事隔多年後，控方現承認已沒有足夠證據檢控申請人，申請人將會無罪釋放。

麥高義表示，除了申請人以外，其他大部分涉案的人士經審訊或上訴之後都已無罪釋放，唯一被定罪的人士是因為有招認口供才被定罪，但申請人從未作過任何招認，申請人更一直否認控方的指控。

麥高義表示，未有依照擔保條件出庭應訊，在一九七八年時並不屬於刑事罪行，有關行為直至一九九四年才被納入刑事罪行。另外，根據案例，未有依照擔保條件出庭應訊也不構成藐視法庭。離開香港可以有不同的原因，大家也不知道申請人離開香港的理由，但離開香港不能視作申請人曾犯罪的證據。

麥高義稱，申請人一旦出庭應訊，控方將會不提出證據檢控申請人，在法律上和邏輯上，申請人無罪釋放是無可避免的。法庭現時面對一個法律上的矛盾，法庭為求把將會無罪釋放的申請人帶到法庭應訊，便用逮捕令去拘捕和扣留申請人。法庭不應為了釋放一個人而下令把一個人扣留，高院因此應撤銷對申請人的逮捕令。

代表律政司的資深大律師鄧樂勤稱，律政司對於高院是否撤銷對申請人的逮捕令保持中立，其中主要原因是經過時間的流逝，控方已沒有足夠的證據去檢控申請人，若申請人返回香港，他將會被拘捕和被帶到法庭，他有可能在頗短的時間之內便可以就公訴書進行答辯，控方將會不提出證據檢控他，他便會無罪釋放。法官陳慶偉最後拒絕申請，並指要如何處理案件是律政司的決定。

律政司昨晚發聲明表示，控方在二○○五年已通知申請人的律師，認為沒有足夠證據檢控申請人，這結論是經過詳細及小心分析所有證據和證人後作出，其中一個考慮，是多名相關證人已去世，或因事隔多年或年老而無法記起相關事件，或不願意合作。據悉，有關證人為特赦污點證人。

另外，根據律政司先前曾發給申請人代表律師的信件，在信中表示，經過警方深入調查案件的狀況後，律政司決定當時無足夠證據去檢控申請人。

(Source: http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140415/bkn-20140415000048228-0415_00822_001.html)

Solicitor Roderick Miller Only Allowed Conditional Practice (And Cannot Sign Cheques For Clients)

律師 Roderick Miller (Solicitor / Lawyer) 於2011年因欠債遭入稟，至今年債項仍未清還，律師會遂向他發出有條件的執業證書，包括律師受聘前要獲得律師會批准，亦不可代客戶簽發支票。律師不服向上訴庭提上訴，但法官今指，雖然法庭並不質疑該律師的誠信及能力，但認同律師會有責任保障公眾利益，故駁回律師的申請。

 

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140414/52383194)

42. ... Whilst I accept a short term cash flow problem may not always be a problem in the practice of a solicitor, long term unresolved financial difficulties would obviously be a problem if the solicitor is entrusted with the monies of his client. A sole proprietor will inevitably have dealings with the funds of his client. Even putting aside conveyancing practice, a litigation solicitor would have monies on account from his clients for disbursements and counsel fees. The unfitness to practise may stem from circumstances other than those pertaining to the integrity or competence of a solicitor. As Rule 2 itself suggests, it may stem from the financial position of a solicitor.

 

43. On the facts of the present case, having considered the submissions of counsel in light of all the materials before me, I am of the view that it is NOT appropriate to issue an unconditional practising certificate to Solicitor / Lawyer Mr Roderick Miller for 2014...

 

(Source: http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2014/699.html)
 

曾昭穎律師申請逾3千萬元贍養費利息獲批 - Solicitor Florence Tsang Awarded Interests Exceeding HK$30 Million on Outstanding Maintenance Payments

恒豐企業主要股東李德義，不滿前媳婦曾昭穎獲得逾14億元贍養費，與兒子李建勤提出上訴，最終上訴得直，贍養費金額減至約4億多元。李家於原審時已支付了2億多元，而餘下的2億多元亦於今年1月支付，不過曾昭穎認為對方應支付一直未繳交餘款的利息，合共3,572萬元，故向上訴庭要求對方支付。

上訴庭今早頒下判詞，批准曾昭穎的申請，利息由2011年12月起、以8%計算，故最終李家須向曾昭穎支付3,570多萬元利息。

 

(Source: http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140414/bkn-20140414135509303-0414_00822_001.html)

馮霄馮國基律師行被控疏忽 - Fung & Fung Solicitors Accused of Negligence

Fung & Fung Solicitors Accused of Negligence - 馮霄馮國基律師行被控疏忽

http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20140413/18688153

七旬婆婆四年前與女兒合資買樓同住，惜同住不足兩年，女兒便將她趕走。婆婆遂向律師行索取法律意見，向女兒追討物業款項，惟女兒於訴訟中途將物業賣走。婆婆再向其他律師樓求助，始知興訟之初，原來可申請禁制令阻止女兒賣樓。婆婆再興訟最終勝訴，但女兒已失蹤，她無法取回賣樓得益。婆婆日前入稟高院指律師行疏忽，令她損失約400萬元，要求賠償。

原告陳望華（譯音）現年74歲，被告為馮霄，馮國基律師行 (Fung & Fung Solicitors)。入稟狀指，2010年2月，原告向女兒劉詠儀提出一同購買美孚新邨單位同住。同年5月，二人以385萬元購得單位。原告支付七成半，即近290萬元，單位業主是女兒。同年6月，原告跟女兒及女兒男友入住單位，前年3月，女兒將原告趕走.

沒建議可申禁制令

 

被告合夥人律師謝偉琪 (Solicitor Ricky W K Tse) 向原告稱「你得兩條路，一係你當借錢畀個女買樓，你追番啲錢，一係當送咗畀個女」，但沒建議可指女兒以受託人形式持有單位業權，或建議申請禁制令阻女兒賣樓.

 

原告依謝偉琪律師 (Lawyer Ricky W K Tse) 建議於同年4月興訟，惟女兒於8月以525萬元將單位賣掉。原告另覓法律意見後於去年10月勝訴，她可取回應有的賣樓得益，但女兒已失蹤。

案件編號：HCA670/14

________________________________________

 

http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140412/bkn-20140412210242381-0412_00822_001.html

 

七旬老婦與女兒合資購買美孚新邨一個單位同住，但其後被女兒趕走，她遂向一間律師行索取法律意見，在對方律師建議下，她以為追討一途只能向女兒追錢，而未有與女兒爭奪單位業權或將單位「釘契」等，結果不孝女兒在訴訟期間暗中賣出單位套現，之後更不知所踪。老婦另覓律師處理雖在官司中勝出，但最終因找不到女兒又無法取回賣樓得益，「慘勝」的老婦今日(12日)遂入稟高院指控該間律師行疏忽，並索償近400萬元的損失。

女原告陳滿華(譯音)現年74歲，被告是馮霄、馮國基律師行 (Fung & Fung Solicitors)。入稟狀透露，原告兩年前向被告索取法律意見時已72歲，她只有小學教育程度及不懂英語。原告曾居於重慶大廈一個屬於自己的單位，其女兒劉詠儀曾居於青龍頭豪景花園一個屬於劉的單位。原告於10年2月表示想與女兒同住，她們後來同意各自出售自己單位，母女又表明「我哋夾份買間樓一齊住」。之後她們選中了美孚新邨一個單位，並於2010年5月以385萬元買入該單位，原告支付了當中四分三的款項。

原告指美孚該單位雖然只註冊了劉作為業主，但母女的原意是按出錢比例分配單位業權。至10年6月，母女與劉的男友同搬入該單位居住，但原告於12年3月被女兒趕走。「無家可歸」的原告遂向被告索取法律意見，以了解是否可以向劉提出申索；期間被告收了原告3萬元費用，被告的一名律師向原告提出建議：「你得兩條路：一係你當你借錢畀個女買樓，你追番啲錢；一係當送咗畀你個女！」惟該名律師沒有告訴原告其他可行的法律途徑，包括原告可考慮指控劉只是以信託方式代原告持有單位的部分業權，律師亦無告訴原告可把單位「釘契」及申請禁制令，以阻止劉出售該單位或擅自處理出售該單位的得益。

原告當時以為向劉追錢只是「唯一選擇」，遂委託被告向劉興訟追討對方借錢買樓的款項，惟在進行訴訟期間，劉已將該單位以525萬元出售後「失踪」，原告已找不到劉，而她其後向其他律師行索取意見，才修改狀書與劉進行爭奪單位業權的訴訟。原告於去年10月獲判勝訴，法官判劉只以受託人身份持有出售該單位的得益。原告原本可按比例分到賣樓得益約393萬元，但因劉已不知去向，原告無法討回款項，遂入稟高院指控被告在事件中疏忽及提出索償。

戴展華被判入獄九個月 (19930318) - Tai Chin Wah Setenced to 9 Months' Imprisonment (19930318)

http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkca/1993/20.html

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TAI CHIN WAH [1993] HKCA 20; [1993] 1 HKC 1; CAAR5/1992 (18 March 1993)

CAAR000005/1992

 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

1992, No. 5

Application for Review

____________

BETWEEN
	THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
	and
	TAI CHIN WAH

____________

Coram: Silke, V.-P., Power & Macdougall, JJ.A.

    

Dates of hearing: 9 - 11 December 1992

 

Date of judgment: 18 March 1993

   

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

 

Silke, V.-P.:

 

1. This is the judgment of the court.

 

2. Tai Chin Wah appeared for trial before His Honour Judge Britton on a charge sheet which contained five charges. The first charge was that of uttering a forged document, contrary to section 74(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap.200 - "the Ordinance". Its particulars alleged that Tai Chin Wah, on or about 6th May 1983, at the office of the Law Society of Hong Kong, uttered a forged document: namely a document purporting to be a Law Society of England and Wales Certificate of passing the Solicitors' Final Examination. The Certificate was dated 26th November 1982. It was alleged that Tai Chin Wah - whom we shall from hereon called the respondent - knew it to be forged and had the intent to deceive.

 

3. The second charge was a similar offence and its particulars were that on 6th June 1983, also at the office of the Law Society of Hong Kong, the respondent uttered a forged document: namely a document purporting to be a letter from the Law Society of England and Wales dated 30th May 1983 knowing that it was forged and with intent to deceive.

 

4. The third charge was that of making a false statutory declaration, contrary to section 36(a) of the Ordinance. Its particulars alleged that the respondent, on 16th May 1983, in Hong Kong, in a declaration which was entitled "a Declaration as to Service under Articles" made under the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance, knowingly and willfully made a statement which was false in a material particular, that is that he had complied with the requirements of rule 14(b) of the Articled Clerks Rules as to the passing of examinations. The fourth charge was possession of a forged document, contrary to section 76(3) of the Ordinance, and its particulars alleged that the respondent, on 7th October 1991, at his home had in his custody without lawful authority or excuse a forged document, which he knew to be forged; namely a Law Society of England and Wales Certificate of passing the Solicitors' Final Examination which certificate was dated 26th November 1982.

 

5. The fifth and final charge was also that of possession of a forged document and its particulars alleged that he, on 7th October 1991, at his home had in his custody or possession without lawful authority or excuse forged documents, that is writing paper of the Law Society of England and Wales which he knew to be forged.

 

6. To all these charges he pleaded guilty, and upon his plea being accepted, the trial judge sentenced him to 6 months imprisonment on each of the charges, those sentences to be concurrent. The judge then went on to suspend those sentences for a period of 12 months.

 

7. The sentences having been imposed on 27th February 1992 the Attorney General, on 18th March 1992, filed an application under the provisions of section 81A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap.221 for leave to apply to the Court of Appeal to review those sentences on the basis that they were "manifestly inadequate and/or wrong in principle". On the same day the solicitors acting for the respondent wrote a letter to the court seeking to have the application for leave heard on an inter parses basis. The single judge, in the person of the Chief Justice, having considered that which was said in "Applications for Review Nos. 10, 11 and 13 of 1990" [A.G .v. Tse Ka Wah and Others [1992] 1 HKCLR 103] refused that request. He granted the Attorney General's application for leave and directed that the papers be filed within 14 days. That order was made on 19th March.

 

....

 

68. We have no doubt at all that an immediate custodial sentence should have been imposed by the sentencing judge, and of greater length than the 6 months imprisonment he thought appropriate. That was manifestly inadequate. It was wrong in principle to suspend. We would assess the proper sentence now to be 9 months imprisonment concurrent on each charge. We would allow the Attorney General's review and make that order.

_____________________________________

 

http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/news/20090407/00176_011.html

 

多名議員先後犯法入獄

 

立法會議員因犯法被判入獄或虛報資料其實早有前科，戴展華、梁錦濠、詹培忠和程介南曾先後因觸犯法例而被判入獄，並喪失議員席位，而黃宜弘和何秀蘭等亦曾因虛報個人資料而被公眾質疑誠信。

 

戴展華梁錦濠等判坐監

 

九二年剛取得新界西直選立法局議席的戴展華，因被控偽造英國法律考試合格證書，並向香港律師會發假誓後在港冒認律師罪成，被判入獄九個月，他在入獄前已辭去議員一職。立法局議員梁錦濠亦在九三年被廉政公署起訴，指他曾向多名區議員買票，結果被控兩項提供利益及一項行賄罪名成立，判監三年。

 

現任立法會金融服務界議員詹培忠，亦曾於九八年八月被指企圖違反證券及期貨監察事務委員會的收購及合併條例，偽造文書罪名成立，被判入獄三年，詹培忠同時被褫奪立法會議席。

監禁期間，廉政公署再起訴他於九八年立法會選舉中賄賂選民罪成，罰款十萬元。

二○○○年八月，民建聯前副主席程介南在參選立法會港島區直選期間，被指利用議員身份向其公關顧問公司客戶提供利益，以權謀私，他當選後旋即辭去立法會議員一職，直至○一年底被控身為公職人員收受利益及行為失當罪名成立，判監十八個月。

至於虛報個人資料，何秀蘭曾被指於九八年立法會選舉期間呈報的學歷資料不盡不實，沒有說明自己未能在加拿大滑鐵盧大學完成學位課程，個人誠信遭到打擊。另外，立法會前議員黃宜弘更被揭在美國取得的工程學博士學位，是由美國兩間「文憑工廠」頒授，未獲當地政府認可，被指誤導公眾及立法會。

補習教師何正朗承認管有兒童色情物品

畢業於中大生物系的26歲兼職補習教師何正朗，今在區域法院承認管有兒童色情物品，包括4521張色情照片,及500段色情影片，影像屬第四级的成人及年僅3歲女童的性交，肛交和口交。案件延至4月23日等待被告的心理檢驗報告，被告還押監房。被告於13年8月15日在其粉嶺祥華邨寓所內遭警方拘捕，被告警誡下表示因好奇，從電腦下載供自己觀看。

(Source: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140409/-101-3234863/1.html)

李海明否認非禮年輕女大學生

被告李海明（57歲）昨否認非禮罪，案情指他於去年9月26日在荃灣梨木樹道金運工業大廈的單位非禮一名22歲女事主。被告在該處租用兩個單位經營書法畫室，以時薪70元聘請模特兒當人像畫畫及以時薪200元聘請裸體模特兒。

現讀大學的女事主昨在屏風後作供，她供稱由友人介紹到被告的畫室當兼職裸體模特兒，抵埗後，現場有另一名女模特兒。被告叫她跟書法結合，然後遞上王羲之《十七帖》的字集，在當中揀選三個字樣，着她想像一下如何擺姿態配合字樣供他拍照。

 

負責人一絲不掛

 

被告隨即脫衣至僅穿內褲，然後搬出床褥，另一女模特兒見狀即離開。事主跟着脫衣服，此時被告亦已一絲不掛，她感到奇怪及驚慌，遂問被告：「你點解除晒衫？」被告以藝術為由回答：「咁會放啲！」事主稱，由於她首次當裸體模特兒，不熟悉行情，因此沒有再追問。
她跟着按第一個字樣曲膝側卧床褥上，被告用宣紙遮蓋她的臉後拍照，未幾，被告要求她伸直雙腳時，用手觸摸大腿與小腿之間位置。

當她擺出第二個字樣的姿勢，垂頭跪在床褥上，雙手向前伸直讓被告拍照時，被告突然用手按她的背教她擺姿勢，另一隻手由她的鎖骨直掃落胸部，在她的左乳房揑了一下。她心想當模特兒要夠專業，故沒有移動身體，惟被告再次揑她乳房兩下，然後叫她坐在梳化稍作休息。

 

官裁定表證成立

 

十多分鐘後，被告着她到書枱翻字集選第三個字樣，其間從後緊貼她的身體，上半身及生殖器官更壓向她的背部，她於是批肘企圖拉開兩人距離。其後，當她跪在床褥上擺出十字形姿態，被告再次用身體壓向她，並向她說：「你想像吓，一個男子係你身後壓住你！壓住你！」他同時以雙手由鎖骨一直向下掃，經過胸部及腹部，最後按落她的陰部。當她以十字形態趴在床褥時，被告表示到此為止，兩人穿回衣服，被告支付了400元給她。

律師盤問事主時指，事主遭侵犯卻沒有反抗並即時穿回衣服離開，事後還與被告一起吃飯。事主解釋，她當時思緒混亂，因首次做這類工作，未能分清楚當裸體模特兒是否會有身體接觸。

律師又指，實情是她認為要達到雙方公平，故要求被告脫至全裸進行拍攝，但女事主否認。裁判官裁定被告表證成立，案件今進行結案陳詞。

案件編號：TWCC424/14

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20140411/18686176)

梁國堅律師行要求禁制僱員撬客但客人反要求過檔

Joseph Leung & Associates (the Solicitors' Firm) Sought to Prohibit Its Former Employees From Taking Its Clients' Data, But Its Clients Joined the Action and Asked That They Be Allowed to Use the Former Employees of Joseph Leung & Associates (the Law Firm) Instead of the Firm.

 

梁國堅律師行去年入稟高等法院，申請禁制令禁止4名過檔的前僱員及1名律師「撬客」及使用客戶資料，後獲法庭頒下臨時禁制令。惟有25名原屬梁律師行的客戶，早前向法庭申請加入訴訟，更指希望跟隨4被告「過檔」，讓4人繼續負責他們的案件。

法庭今頒下判詞，指若拒絕25名申請人，可能會帶來的不公義是難以彌補，相反地若讓被告繼續處理該25名客戶的案件，為原告帶來的後果卻可以控制，故最終批准該25名客戶的申請。

法庭下令5被告可繼續代表該25名客戶，但要向原告交出有關文件，而有關禁制令亦繼續有效，5被告不能處理2005年3月至2013年3月原屬梁律師行的案件。

 

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140410/52371770)

高級督察饒嘉偉會展非禮3女罪續審

高級督察饒嘉偉（45歲）涉嫌去年11月8日出席國際美酒展期間，在灣仔香港會議展覽中心五樓展覽廳先後非禮3名女子。饒否認4項非禮罪名，案件今於東區裁判法院續審。與女事主X一同觀展的陳姓女友人今供稱，與另一友人試酒時，突然發現X不見了，之後見X獨自走向前方。她見X神色驚慌，問X發生甚麼事。X告知被被告觸摸，陳遂一起跟蹤被告。之後X突然說「又碰到了」（另一人），但陳指看不到被告觸摸另一女子。

(Source: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140408/-101-3234084/1.html)

民聲冰室東主甄卓男刑恐食署督察判囚

民聲冰室東主刑恐食署督察判囚

【太陽報專訊】【本報訊】以「鹹蛋蒸肉餅」馳名、獲陳奕迅、黎明等不少明星藝人捧場的跑馬地民聲冰室，上月被食物環境衞生署人員票控阻街，冰室男東主疑因不滿，在冰室外用手指戳跌一名食環署男督察，更說︰「今晚放工小心啲，我會搵人嚟斬你！」男東主事後被控刑恐及阻礙公職人員兩罪，昨在東區法院受審後罪成，判監三個月兩星期，但獲准保釋等候上訴，控方透露被告於本月十五日需就另一宗相類刑恐案受審。

 

有四次案底

 

三十六歲被告甄卓男，報稱餐廳東主，被控三月七日，在跑馬地浣紗街民聲冰室外，恐嚇食環署二級男督察陳啟峰，他另被控阻礙陳執行職務。被告有四次案底，其中三次與暴力有關。二十九歲事主陳啟峰稱，他當晚與同事到上址一帶進行打擊店舖擴展的行動，見涉案冰室外有職員收拾擺放在街的枱椅，遂要求女負責人交出商業牌照等文件。被告及另一名男職員上前問︰「你哋做咩成日過嚟？」當陳要求女負責人交出身份證及準備票控阻街時，被告突然情緒激動，以粗言穢語辱罵陳。被告更叫女負責人不要交出身份證，又用手指戳陳的嘴唇左上方，致他跌倒。

 

准保釋上訴

 

被告接着對陳說︰「唔好扮嘢！」又說︰「今晚放工小心啲，我會搵人嚟斬你！」附近巡警聞訊到場平息事件後，陳與其他同事返回辦公室，但發現遭涉案冰室的男職員跟蹤，陳認為事態嚴重，故告訴上司和報警。

 

辯方盤問時指被告當時並無戳及恐嚇陳，質疑陳若覺得被恐嚇為何不立即告訴到場的巡警。陳指他每次執行職務也遇到辱罵，最初不信被告會斬他，而當時亦害怕至不知所措。

 

裁判官接納控方證人口供可靠，又指陳只任職一年，而且首次被恐嚇，過度驚慌至無即時報警可以理解，故裁定被告兩罪成立及判處監禁。辯方求情則指，涉案冰室屬家族經營，持牌人是被告母親，被告亦負責營運，月入約一萬元，被告已離婚，需要照顧一名五歲兒子。辯方為被告申請保釋等候上訴獲批准，被告與親友其後在庭外曾與一名攝影記者發生爭執。

 

案件編號︰ESCC 945/14

 

(Source: http://www2.news.sina.com.hk/news/20140408/-2-3233723/1.html)

楊業明大律師專業失當罪成被停牌 - Barrister Clemence Y M Yeung Guilty of Professional Misconduct and Suspended

Lawyer Clemence Yeung Guilty of Professional Misconduct and Suspended - 大狀楊業明專業失當罪成被停牌

Counsel Mr. Yeung Yip Ming (also known as Clemence Y.M. Yeung)

By a Decision dated 3 March 2014 (followed by a 1st Corrigendum dated 21 March 2014), a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found one (1) complaint of professional misconduct against Counsel Mr. Yeung Yip Ming (“Clemence Yeung”) to have been proved.  Further, by a Decision on Sentence handed down on 17 March 2014 (followed by a 2nd Corrigendum dated 21 March 2014), the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal ordered, inter alia, that Clemence Yeung be suspended from practice for a period of one month. The suspension ordered by the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal takes effect from 8 April 2014 to 7 May 2014 (both dates inclusive). (Source: http://hkba.org/the-bar/discipline/bdt/index.html)

Lawyer Chan Kin Lik Nick (Barrister Nick Chan) Struck Off the Roll of Barristers

Barrister Chan Kin Lik Nick (Counsel Nick Chan) Guilty of Professional Misconduct

By a Decision dated 9 January 2014 (followed by a Corrigendum dated 10 March 2014), a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal found five (5) complaints of professional misconduct against Lawyer Chan Kin Lik (“Chan”) to have been proved. Further, by Reasons for Sentence handed down on 10 March 2014, the Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal ordered, inter alia. that Chan’s name be struck off the Roll of Barristers. (Source: http://hkba.org/the-bar/discipline/bdt/index.html)

林偉權法官以為春袋是膀胱 - Judge Josiah Lam Thought "Scrotum" Meant "Bladder"

Judge Josiah Lam Thought "Scrotum" Meant "Bladder" - 林偉權法官以為春袋是膀胱

教會駐中學傳道人涉嫌藉詞性教育和檢查性器，九度非禮兩名中一男生案續審。案中兩名男生作供時，經常以俗語作為性器官代名詞，法庭昨天為此展開一場討論，其間發現主審法官林偉權從讀書時期開始，一直認為「膀胱」等同「春袋」。

事緣男童Y作供時提及，被告黃偉明曾觸摸其「春袋」，法官林偉權遂問Y，他是否指膀胱。控辯雙方聞言即時作出反應，辯方稱，膀胱是儲存尿液之處，惟法官卻說，春袋就是膀胱，更透露他讀書時老師都是如此教。主控官一度建議可沿用男童所說的「春袋」，但法官指法庭有限制，較為粗俗的字眼可免則免，最後一致同意以「陰囊」代替「春袋」。                                  

X曾問被告是否Gay

 

至於就日前供詞中出現「反包皮」一詞，法官昨天亦謂擔心「反」字在法庭紀錄內，會被人誤解為廣東話「玩」的諧音，變成「玩包皮」的意思，故認為最好還是用「捋」（音劣）字表達。

 

控方昨天在庭上播放男童X的會面錄影，X提到在被告寓所與Y同遭被告叫入浴室沖涼，被告問他「包皮包住能否射精」，並為他「搓」陰莖，但他沒有射精。接着被告稱自己已割包皮，故能射精，更示範自瀆並射精在牆上。X稱，曾問被告是否「Gay（同性戀）」，被告作勢以陰莖在他臀部位置「廸」，自稱若是「Gay」便會這樣做。

 

他接受盤問時承認，去年因學業成績不太好，又常與男同學互相拍打和「揸」下體，更試圖觸摸女生胸部，驚動家長和警方。他承認，被告待他倆如契仔。

 

案件編號：DCCC1088/13

 

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20140326/18668847)

官永義等人可取回千萬訟費

上市公司永義國際前主席官永義，被指串謀「黑社會」勒索上市公司前主席許智明，案件在高等法院經審訊後，官與四名被告昨獲陪審團一致裁定各人的串謀勒索、勒索、盜竊及在犯勒索罪時管有槍械的罪名不成立，五人今獲法官批准可取回訟費。

雖然控方指各被告的行為自招嫌疑，但法官認為陪審團的裁決顯示，他們明顯不接受許智明是可信的證人。法官又指，由於案件複雜，認為各被告聘請兩大律師代表屬合理。辯方估計五人訟費共逾千萬。

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140326/52322800)

執業律師唐汝駿今日在東區法院否認一項盜竊罪 - Practising Solicitor TONG YEE CHUN Denied One Charge of Theft Today

執業律師唐汝駿今日在東區法院，否認一項盜竊罪及一項以欺騙手段取得財產罪，案件押後至5月7日進行預審，被告准以1萬元保釋外出。控罪指他涉嫌盜取其任職律師事務所2.4萬元法律費用，及騙取該事務所一名客戶3000元。

(Source 1: http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140326/bkn-20140326104504541-0326_00822_001.html)
(Source 2: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140326/52322693)

陳兆明袁耀彬律師事務所的律師，涉嫌於前年7月偷取律師行2.4萬元，又在同月涉嫌向客人訛稱入境處要收取費用，騙取客人3,000元。律師今被帶到裁判法院，控以偷竊及以欺騙手段取得財物罪。 律師唐汝駿（67歲），今親自出庭否認控罪，案件定於5月7日進行預審，期間被告獲准保釋。

太陽報A1頭條：午夜凶鈴 濫炸市民

凌晨時分接聽「午夜凶鈴」，小心愈接愈收得多。近日有網民表示多次在晚上甚至凌晨收到神秘電話，接聽後卻無任何聲音，不少人被這些無聲電話影響睡眠及工作，有人斬腳避沙蟲，早早關掉電話。專家估計，部分無聲電話屬電話推銷公司「試電話」，一旦號碼有人接聽，便作日後推銷之用。由於這些電話一般從放工時間開始自動撥打直到凌晨時分，對市民造成極為困擾。

「長假期時最離譜，晚晚收到無聲電話！」無聲電話近日成為熱話，不少人在網上大談被無聲電話滋擾之苦，透露晚上至凌晨一兩點是無聲電話高峰期。有網民更帶頭追究，揚言要收集網民收到的來電號碼，再報警處理。早在半年開始收無聲電話的阿John更指，自己及朋友都在早前多次收到無聲電話，甚至曾在凌晨三點響起，影響他睡眠及工作。

收集非應邀電話網站HKJunkCall.com管理員胡文翰表示，大部分號碼屬常見的無聲電話號碼，除了惡作劇或傳真機等誤打因素，無聲電話主要來自電話推銷公司。首先由電腦自動設定大量號碼，再經電話自動撥打功能撥打，以測試電話的接聽率，接聽率高的號碼將會在日後作更集中電話推銷。

胡文翰續稱，由於電話會利用電腦及自動系統撥打，因此連凌晨時分都會收到。據網站資料庫數字，過去一年共收到近三千個無聲電話舉報，當中一個字首為「3521」的號碼更被提交逾四十次。

通訊事務管理局辦公室發言人回覆指，目前《非應邀電子訊息條例》規管發送載有商業成分的電子訊息，但若撥打電話非發出商業電子訊息或誘使接聽者回電以聽取預錄電話訊息，有關條例便不適用。

警方發言人指，過去三年平均每年接獲有關電話滋擾的報案數字約三千四百宗。根據《簡易程序治罪條例》，任何人無合理因由及旨在對他人造成煩擾或不便，或旨在令他人產生不必要的憂慮而不斷打電話，即屬違法，可罰款一千元及監禁兩個月。

(Source 1: http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140324/bkn-20140324011620676-0324_00822_001.html)

Solicitor Stephen Finley Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 范凌律師專業失當罪成

Reasons and Order: 9 December 2013

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (“Tribunal”) found the following complaints against the Respondent proved after holding substantive hearings on 24, 25 July and 6, 13 August 2012 respectively:

1st Complaint
Breaches of Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR and Principle 13.02 of the Guide in that on or about 1 September 2009, a cheque which the Respondent issued on his office account to his client (whom he had acted for in a District Court proceedings and the claim was partially successful),was dishonoured.

2nd Complaint
Breaches of Rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR and Principle 13.02 of the Guide in that on or about 28 April and 28 May 2010, cheques which the Respondent issued on his office account to the landlord of his firm’s office premises (the “Landlord”) were dishonoured.

3rd Complaint
Breaches of Rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR in that the Respondent failed between 13 August 2009 and 31 January 2010 to pay to the Landlord the rent, management fees and rates due on his firm’s office premises, allowed the Landlord to enter judgment against him for the unpaid rent, etc. and allowed the Landlord to serve a statutory demand on him in connection with the unpaid rent, etc.

4th Complaint
Breaches of Rule 2(a), (c), (d) and (e) of the SPR and Principle 14.02 of the Guide in that the Respondent did not comply with an undertaking he gave to another solicitors’ firm during September 2009 to return to that another solicitors’ firm an assignment in connection with the purchase of a property in Sky Tower, Kowloon.

5th Complaint
Breaches of Principles 12.04 and 12.05 of the Guide in that the Respondent did not either pay or challenge, within two (2) months, fee notes delivered by a Senior Counsel (the “Senior Counsel”) on 10 July and 21 October 2008.

6th Complaint
Breaches of Rule 2(d) of the SPR and Principle 12.05 of the Guide in that as at 1 November 2011 the Respondent did not pay the fees notes delivered by the Senior Counsel on 10 July and 21 October 2008.

7th Complaint
Breaches of Rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR and Principle 13.02 of the Guide in that on or about 31 December 2009 and 3 February 2010, cheques issued by the Respondent on his office account to the Senior Counsel were dishonoured.

8th Complaint
A breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide in that the Respondent failed to respond promptly and meaningfully to enquiries from the Law Society.

9th Complaint
Breaches of the Section 8AA of the LPO and Rule 2(a) and (d) of the SPR in that the Respondent failed to comply with a notice of inspection issued by the Law Society on 26 March 2010.

10th Complaint
The common law offence of misconduct on account of the facts detailed in the above complaints. The common law offence of misconduct includes any conduct which is not dealt with by any specific rule but is nonetheless improper.

After consideration of the mitigation submitted by the Respondent, the Tribunal ordered that:-

1. The Respondent be censured for all the complaints.
2. In regard to the 1st Complaint, the Respondent is fined HK$300,000. This sum will be reduced to HK$150,000 provided the Respondent satisfies the Tribunal that full payment to his client mentioned in the 1st Complaint has been made within 10 days.
3. In regard to the 2nd and 3rd Complaints, the Respondent is fined a total amount of HK$100,000 for both complaints.
4. In regard to the 4th Complaint, the Respondent is fined HK$75,000.
5. In regard to the 5th and 6th Complaints, the Respondent is fined a total sum of HK$160,000. This sum will be reduced to HK$100,000 provided he satisfies the Tribunal that he has made full payment to the Senior Counsel within 10 days.
6. In regard to the 7th Complaint, the Respondent is fined HK$100,000.
7. In regard to the 8th Complaint, the Respondent is fined HK$100,000.
8. In regard to the 9th Complaint, the Respondent is fined HK$150,000.
9. In regard to the 10th Complaint, there will be no additional penalty.
10. For a period of 12 months after the Respondent is issued a fresh Practising Certificate, if any, following the intervention by the Law Society on 4 January 2012 in the practice of the Respondent, the Respondent shall not practise as a sole-proprietor or partner of a solicitors’ firm but can only practise as an employed solicitor under the supervision of a solicitor who has been actively practised in Hong Kong for at least 10 years.
11. The costs of these proceedings, including the costs of investigation of the Applicant, the costs of the Applicant and the Clerk to the Tribunal, be borne and paid by the Respondent on an indemnity basis, such costs to be taxed, if not agreed

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=1983&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=1983&c=121)

霸位大狀陳柏年責警調查偏頗

霸位大狀陳柏年 (Barrister Perry Chan) 責警調查偏頗

大律師陳柏年 (Counsel Perry Chan)（四十三歲）涉襲擊案，昨在觀塘裁判法院續審，控方已完成舉證，今日裁定是否表證成立。

 

事件中的「塘邊鶴」乘客夏瀚偉供稱，曾因被告 (Lawyer Perry Chan) 說話滿口英文而不滿，嘲被告「扮晒外國人講英文」，後來目擊被告揮拳擊中一名男乘客，夏獲邀做證人。旅遊車抵達皇崗後，被告曾問他「兄台，可唔可以無數呀？」夏回應「我都唔係你兄台」。夏是繼事主李偉成及退休事務律師乘客鄭成浩後，指證被告襲擊的第三人。

 

案件編號：觀塘刑事六六二八--二○一三。

 

(星島日報 2014 年3月21日)

 

(Source 1: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140321/-2-3218736/1.html)

(Source 2: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140321/-101-3219259/1.html)

(Source 3: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140321/52305643)

霸位不果被恥笑 陳柏年大律師涉毆乘客開審

大律師陳柏年 (Barrister Perry Chan) 於去年10月11日晚，乘搭過境旅遊巴時疑用公事包一人霸兩位，並向要求他讓出座位的乘客指，自己買了兩張車票。但當被要求出示車票時，大律師陳柏年 (Counsel Perry Chan) 始向司機要求補票，最終大律師陳柏年 (Lawyer Perry Chan) 補票不果，要讓出座位。事後在車程上有乘客起哄，批評大律師陳柏年 (Perry Chan Barrister) 行為，大律師陳柏年 (Perry Chan Counsel)涉嫌爆粗後出手襲擊其中一名李姓乘客，因而惹上官非。

大律師陳柏年 (Perry Chan Lawyer)（43歲），否認襲擊乘客，案件今在裁判法院開審。據被告的警誡供詞透露，被告向警方稱與李沒有身體接觸，反是李向他揮拳，而又指當時要求他讓出座位的乘客自稱大律師，該名人士向李提議報警，被告怕兩人串謀誣告他。

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140319/52298084)

Barrister Andrew Allman-Brown's Arguments Are Sterile and Wholly Unattractive - Says the Hong Kong Court of Appeal

Counsel Andrew Allman-Brown's Arguments Are "Sterile and Wholly Unattractive" - Says the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Effiscient v Lehman (HCMP 593/2012) paragraph 23.

(See: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=82229&QS=%2B&TP=JU)

Barrister Perry Chan Prosecuted for Assault - 大律師陳柏年被控襲擊

陳柏年大律師被控襲擊 - Lawyer Perry Chan Prosecuted for Assault

 

43歲大律師陳柏年 (Counsel Perry Chan)，涉嫌於去年10月11日搭旅遊巴返內地時，霸佔兩個座位，被揭發後與司機乘客爭執，並襲擊男乘客。陳早前否認一項普通襲擊罪，案件今於觀塘法院開審，辯方反指是事主動手，並指事主與一名自稱大律師的乘客「夾口供」，反過來指控陳襲擊。從事鑽石批發的事主李偉成供稱，案發時有乘客希望坐在被告旁的位置，惟被告以英文回答「我買咗兩張票」，不願讓出位置，有乘客不滿起哄，稱被告是「衣冠禽獸」，事主亦加入口角，被告突然揮拳撃中他的面部，有乘客曾表示可以做證。辯方則指，當時要求讓出位置的乘客自稱是大律師，指被告「影衰法律界的聲譽」，又要求被告「落車隻揪」，被告反問「你係大律師，隻揪？你喺咪傻㗎？」後來事主加入口角，以粗口指罵被告並動武。事主得悉被告報警後，獲該名自稱大律師的乘客教唆，應也報警向警方備案，稱自己才是受害者，並答應作證，被告問「妨礙司法公正，你識唔識串啊？」法庭記者：陳子丰

 

(Source: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140319/-32-3216994/1.html)

大嶼山的士司機陳鎮昇 (24歲) 否認強姦年長兩年的女熟客

年輕的士司機涉強姦一名於澳洲留學回來的女熟客，大嶼山的士司機陳鎮昇（24歲）搭上年長兩年的女熟客，縱使對方一早表明已有男友，但男被告仍與她展開地下戀情，事主堅稱對方並非男友，只因正印男友居於澳洲，深感寂寞才與男被告搭上。其後女方正印男友發現戀情，女方逐斬情絲，惟被告卻失控聲言要斬死她，其後更將她強姦。被告否認一項強姦罪，案件今於高院開審。控方開案陳詞指12年12月3日，二人分開後又復合，並一同看演唱會。被告要求女方到其家中留宿並發生性行為遭拒，突然襲擊她的頭，又拿起菜刀聲言要斬死她。被告父母均在屋內力阻不果。女方聲稱因害怕被告再動怒而自行返回房間，於不自願情況下與被告發生性行為。事主翌日早上於男方母親協助下離開，其後報警。法庭記者：蘇曉欣

 

(Source: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140317/-101-3214723/1.html)

女西醫沈靜兒專業失德罪成 - Female Doctor Sam Ching Yee Guilty of Professional Misconduct

曾因濫發病假紙而被判專業失德的女西醫沈靜兒 (Dr Sam Ching Yee)，於2011年8月不當地向一名有藥物過敏病史的女病人處方一款非類固醇消炎藥，病人其後出現過敏反應。醫務委員會今早召開紀律聆訊，沈被控一項專業失德罪名成立，判除牌一個月，緩刑一年。

案情指，女病人對阿士匹靈及非類固醇消炎藥(NSAID)過敏，她在2011年8月4日因發燒、喉嚨痛及經痛向沈求診，當時已告知沈有關藥物過敏史。但沈仍然處方一款NSAID藥物予她。病人服藥翌日出現過敏反應，經查證而揭發問題。

沈靜兒今早出席聆訊及承認控罪，她自辯求情時指自己對該藥物有誤解，誤以為可處方該藥物，她承諾日後會加倍小心。

 

(Source 1: http://hk.on.cc/hk/bkn/cnt/news/20140317/bkn-20140317113400053-0317_00822_001.html)

 

74日內向同一病人開30張病假紙 女西醫沈靜兒專業失德罪成

26/10/2007                      醫務委員會昨日聆訊女西醫沈靜兒 (Dr Sam Ching Yee) 被指控去年七至九月期間，在短短七十四日內向一名女病人狂發三十張病假紙，病人聲稱有傷風、頭痛、頸痛及耳水不平衡等病徵，但請假理由清一色是上呼吸道感染。病人僱主去年底終忍無可忍將其解僱，並向醫委會投訴女西醫濫發病假紙。醫委會昨裁定沈靜兒專業失當指控成立，但僅予以譴責。   沈靜兒聞判後雙目通紅不發一言離去。九八年畢業於港大的沈靜兒，被指控去年七月十一日至九月二十三日期間，在當時任職的一間小西灣醫療集團診所內，不適當地向病人黃佩珊簽發三十張病假紙，共批出三十六日病假。醫委會裁定上述指控成立，另一項針對沈靜兒無為黃佩珊提供適切轉介的指控則不成立。沈醫生去年十一月已離職。 病人被僱主炒魷 病人黃佩珊作供時稱，○五年開始光顧沈靜兒，她在去年七至九月期間，多次因耳水不平衡、頸痛、頭暈及流鼻水等徵狀向沈求診。她承認向醫生索病假紙，又稱頻密覆診的原因是「我需要休息囉」！黃佩珊去年十一月遭解僱，理由是僱主不滿她長期以同一理由請病假。黃與僱主至今仍有勞資訴訟未完結。  聆訊主席麥列菲菲宣讀判詞時說，從證供中發現病人沒有明顯的上呼吸道感染病徵，病情根本毋須簽發醫生紙，而覆診次數頻密得不尋常。委員會亦察覺到病人經常晚上才往覆診，要求醫生發回當日病假紙。 13次會診無紀錄 麥列菲菲特別指出，沈靜兒與黃佩珊的三十次會診紀錄中，只有十七次有齊全的電腦紀錄。但由於沈靜兒的前僱主解釋，診所去年底更換程式時流失部分病人資料，故委員會無足夠證據證明沈靜兒在無跟病人會面的情況下簽發假醫生紙。另外，委員會考慮到沈靜兒並無前科，前僱主亦稱讚其工作表現良好，決定予以譴責，相信她已吸取深刻訓，不會再犯。  沈靜兒昨自辯時一再強調，黃佩珊的主要病徵是上呼吸道感染，但同時患有耳水不平衡及病情反覆，故需要較多休息時間。但專家證人香港家庭醫學院總監察阮中鎏亦指出，上呼吸道感染通常三至七日就會痊愈。 麥列菲菲在裁判時指出，關注受醫療集團聘用的醫生，以診所名義向病人發出醫生紙。由於醫生紙上未能顯示主診醫生的姓名，令其他人難以追溯，故認為醫生應以自己的名義向病人發出醫生紙。 醫療集團一直遭外界批評為保障收入，限制受聘醫生為病人處方藥物，甚至「順應」病人要求簽發醫生紙。西醫工會會長楊超發表示，若醫療集團老闆是商人而並非專業西醫，「佢就會做好多唔係醫生做，因為少病人就會少收入，為唔得失病人，旗下醫生會對病人服侍周到，可能會過火位」!

(Source 2: http://the-sun.on.cc/channels/news/20071026/20071026023846_0000.html)

澳門以錢代監可取消刑期 - In Macau You Can Pay Money To Cancel Imprisonment

雖然劉、羅兩人罪名成立，惟根據澳門法例，若兩人潛逃至刑期即將完結時，便可委派律師，向法庭申請取消刑期，屆時犯人便可自由出入澳門境內，並不用受刑，犯人甚至可以錢代監，免除牢獄之災。

 

澳門法律界人士指，當法院判刑後，刑期會待犯人接獲通知後開始計算，如犯人潛逃有關當局會發出拘捕令，並向各個出入境關口發攔截令。如犯人一直無出現，待刑期即將完結時，可委派律師，向法庭申請何時可取消刑期，法院會考慮犯人干犯罪行之嚴重性、對社會的危害性、刑期長短等因素，決定何時取消刑期。換言之犯人獲法庭取消刑期後，即使犯人於澳門出現，亦毋須服刑。而根據《刑法典》如嫌犯在犯案後未被拘捕，其觸犯的法例徒刑為五年或超逾五年，法律的追溯期限為十五年。

 

按案情嚴重性決定

 

另外，根據澳門《刑法典》第四十四至五十五條，兩例分別載有「徒刑的替代」及「緩刑」的闡釋。澳門法律界人士解釋，條文列明犯人只要被判不超過半年的徒刑，法官即可改判相同日數的罰金，代替監禁；而刑期不超過三年者，法官則可判處緩刑，再要求被判刑者繳交罰金，「罰金多少，會因應犯人所干犯罪行、經濟狀況而有所不同。」

 

該律師續稱，只要犯人遭判處的刑期短於三年，而法官又認為被判刑者不會危害社會安全，都可以以錢代監，「無論係危險駕駛，抑或係偽造文件，即係俗稱嘅『斯文罪』，都可以咁做。」他指，被判刑者雖然會留有案底，但只要不再於緩刑期內犯罪，便可免除牢獄之災。

 

澳門立法會議員梁榮仔指，在澳葡年代，間中或會出現囚犯被特赦情況，惟回歸後，相關規例亦同告終結。但他補充，如犯人於在囚期間表現良好，監獄亦可代為提出假釋，他說：「獄方可以寫份報告畀法院，由法院決定可唔可以假釋，如果成功，犯人只係需要坐三分之二刑期。」

 

(Source: http://www2.news.sina.com.hk/news/20140315/-2-3213109/1.html)

Birmingham City Owner Carson Yeung Jailed For Six Years

Birmingham City owner Carson Yeung has been jailed for six years by a Hong Kong court for money laundering.

The businessman, 54, was convicted on Monday of five charges relating to HK$720m (£55m) passing through his bank accounts between 2001 and 2007.

He claimed he had accumulated hundreds of millions of dollars through stock trading, business ventures in mainland China, a hair salon and gambling.

Judge Douglas Yau said the sentence must be a deterrent to others.

'Full force'

 

The former hair stylist's trial was told he had lied about how he made his money and Yeung was described by Judge Yau as "not a witness of truth".

 

The businessman was unable to show where almost HK$100m (£7.7m) in his bank accounts had come from.

Sentencing Yeung at Hong Kong District Court, Judge Yau said: "The sentence must include an element of deterrence to discourage those who are in a position to exploit the system.

"The law will come down on them with full force.

"Maintaining the integrity of the banking system is of paramount importance if Hong Kong is to remain an international finance centre," he said.

Police investigators, who described the case as a difficult one involving analysis of financial records from as far back as 2001, welcomed the six-year sentence.

 

'New era'

 

Gloria Yu, a police investigator, told reporters outside the courthouse: "We overcame a lot of hurdles to get this result.

"We are happy... and encouraged because fighting money laundering is a very arduous task."

The BBC's Andrew Wood in Hong Kong said it was a tough sentence, despite Yeung's lawyer asking for leniency.

 

"He'll be 60 years old [when released], assuming he doesn't come out with time for good behaviour."

Yeung worked in the UK as a teenager before becoming a hairstylist in Hong Kong. He made his fortune investing in Macau in the 1990s and is a prominent property developer in Hong Kong.

He bought Birmingham City in October 2009 for £81.5m from David Sullivan and David Gold, now the co-owners of West Ham.

 

The Hong Kong businessman was arrested and charged with money laundering two years later.

He is the majority shareholder but resigned in February as president of Birmingham City FC, director of Birmingham City plc and director and chairman of the club's parent company, Birmingham International Holdings Ltd (BIHL).

His son, Ryan, 20, and brother-in-law Shui Cheong Ma, 52, remain on the club's board of directors.

Acting chairman Peter Pannu said Yeung would not run the "club by proxy" from prison through family members on the board.

On Monday, the club said Yeung's conviction would have no impact on day-to-day operations.

The Football League has said it is satisfied with the action the club's holding company has taken since the commencement of criminal proceedings.

In a separate development, the sale of 12% of the club was cancelled on Friday as the buyer, a Chinese media firm, failed to meet the deadline set by the club.

 

BBC 5Live's Pat Murphy has estimated the value of the football club has dropped to about £30m as it struggles in the second tier.

Fans' organisation the Blues Trust has said Birmingham supporters are looking forward to a "new era" and want to put "this troubling period behind us as soon as possible".

It has called on BIHL to sell the club as soon as possible.

Since Yeung took charge, Blues have won the League Cup but have been relegated from the Barclays Premier League and are currently 17th in the Championship.

 

(Source: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-birmingham-26479124)

 

 

楊家誠被追債232萬 - Carson Yeung Sued for HK$2.32 Million

因洗黑錢7.2億元被判入獄的英冠球會伯明翰班主楊家誠 (Carson Yeung)，去年4月向一家財務公司借貸200萬元，月息兩厘，須三個月內還款，並簽署同額支票作抵押，但貸款到期時，楊僅償還了12萬元利息。

財務公司發信追討不果，本月拿支票前往兌現也彈票，日前入稟高等法院，向身在獄中的楊，追討本金連利息共232萬元。
原告恒盛財務有限公司在入稟狀指，若楊在收到告票後14日內清還欠款和支付10,045元訟費，訴訟便可中止。
案件編號：HCA425/14                                   

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20140315/18657111)

華置主席「大劉」劉鑾雄及南華足主羅傑承行賄及洗黑錢罪名成立

澳門初級法院經過近兩年審訊，昨宣判華置主席「大劉」劉鑾雄及南華足主羅傑承，行賄澳門運輸工務司前司長歐文龍及洗黑錢罪名成立，劉、羅各判監禁五年三個月。案中八名被告全部缺席聽審，大劉女友呂麗君出席旁聽，劉、羅代表律師表示會提出上訴。

這宗巨貪案矚目中港澳，昨午3時，初級法院合議庭主席蕭偉志開始宣讀判詞，花近一小時才宣讀完畢，指審查所有證據及證詞，認為羅傑承並無任何意願參與涉案機場附近的五幅土地，亦即華置發展項目「御海．南灣」土地，羅只是以中間人身份協助撮成大劉與歐文龍合作。

八名被告全缺席聽審

法官又指出，協助Moon Ocean競投涉案土地的東基公司，並無任何相關顧問工作文件呈交法庭，是「難以置信」，續指大劉作為富經驗的商人，向Moon Ocean貸款兩億元，卻無即時獲得該公司股權，直至該公司獲得涉案土地後才收購該公司，整個過程不合理，法庭對此「好有懷疑」，種種證據迹象反映，實際對涉案土地有興趣者是劉鑾雄。
同時，在歐文龍「友好手冊」中，有寫上「劉鑾雄」或「大劉」名字，法官指，「商界中人都好清楚，大劉係劉鑾雄嘅別名」，手冊中未載有羅傑承的名字，證明羅只是中間人。法官稱根據證人供詞，涉案土地競投由澳門政府決定，由歐挑選參與競投公司，雖獲邀投標者不符要求，但最終涉案土地判給剛成立的Moon Ocean，反映整個批地過程由歐操控。初級法院合議庭三名法官經商議裁定劉及羅兩項罪名成立，首項行賄罪各判兩年九個月；第二項洗黑錢罪各判四年，量刑後劉及羅各判監禁五年三個月。
至於同案其他六名被告，其中五名賄賂罪名成立，各被判監兩年十個月至四年六個月不等，但他們洗黑錢罪不成立；第八被告歐文龍妻子陳明瑛，兩項洗黑錢罪名成立，判監禁四年。案中八名被告昨全部缺席，僅大劉女友呂麗君到庭旁聽。

兩人均表示會提上訴

大劉代表律師明路義稱，其當事人全部否認判決的所有指控，他須研究判詞，20日內會向中級法院提上訴。

羅傑承代表大律師華年達引述羅對判決感失望及憂慮，因無足夠證據證明其當事人名字出現在歐的文件上，他會為羅提出上訴。他又說羅因病未能出庭聽判決，醫生建議羅留在家中最少休息兩日，但他不允透露其病情。

根據澳門法例，行賄罪最高可被判入獄三年；洗黑錢罪最高可判入獄八年。有澳門法律界人士指，今次劉及羅的判刑，與歐文龍貪污案及同類案件判刑相若。該法律界人士指，今次全部被告缺席聽審，由代表律師出庭，被定罪的他們可於20日內向中級法院提出上訴，中級法院考慮是否接納上訴或維持原判。根據澳門刑事法，被告判罪後若不在澳門，澳門當局會發出通緝令，但只有10年有效期。提及今次劉及羅案的律師費，該法律界人士說，曾有商人涉澳門案件，請澳門知名大律師辯護，花費數百萬元；今次大劉案中，代表大劉及羅辯護的均是當地最著名律師，加上大劉曾換律師團隊，案件歷時近兩年，估計律師費以千萬元計.

貪污案判詞重點

‧所有證據、證供認定羅傑承無任何意願參與涉案土地項目，唯一證明只有羅組成的Moon Ocean公司，這公司其後被劉鑾雄收購，羅只是中間人
‧涉案土地批給過程由澳門政府決定，並由歐文龍選出可參與競投的公司，獲邀投標者卻不符合要求，最後批給Moon Ocean，據法庭經驗，整個土地競投由歐一手操控
‧無任何有關協助Moon Ocean競投土地提供顧問的東基公司的顧問工作文件，是難以置信
‧雖然羅傑承持有的Moon Ocean曾制訂涉案土地的初步研究報告，但實際是由劉鑾雄全權操控
‧劉鑾雄是富經驗的商人，為何向Moon Ocean借貸兩億元，卻無立即獲取該公司股權，而是在該公司取得涉案土地後，才收購該公司，過程不合理，種種迹象反映對涉案土地有興趣者是劉鑾雄
‧歐文龍「友好手冊」中，有寫上劉鑾雄，有的寫上大劉，商界清楚大劉是劉鑾雄的別名，兩人在涉案土地投標前，有可疑接觸
Joseph Lau Luen-hung, Steven Lo Kit-shing sentenced to jail for land deal

Billionaire Hong Kong property tycoon Joseph Lau Luen-hung has been handed a jail term of five years and three months by a Macau court for his part in a bribes-for-land racket involving the most corrupt public official ever brought to justice in the history of the former Portuguese enclave.

 

Chinese Estates Holdings chairman, Lau, 62, and his high-profile business partner Steven Lo Kit-shing were yesterday found guilty of corruption and money laundering for paying a HK$20 million bribe to disgraced ex-public works chief Ao Man-long, who was jailed for 29 years in May 2012.

Both men were given the same jail term despite Judge Mario Augusto Silvestre saying that Lau had played a more significant "planning'' role in the bribery scheme. Lawyers for the pair said they would appeal.

 

Neither Lau, who is worth US$8.4 billion according to the Forbes rich list, nor Lo, the multi-millionaire boss of top Hong Kong soccer team South China, were in Macau's Court of First Instance to hear the verdict. They are unlikely to spend any time behind bars because Macau does not have an extradition treaty with Hong Kong.

 

After a two-year trial punctuated by delays, sickness and an unprecedented change of judge, Lau and Lo were found guilty of offering a bribe to Ao in return for five plots of prime land over-looking one of the world's most lucrative stretches of land - Macau's glitzy Cotai Strip - for a luxury housing development, La Scala.

 

Judge Augusto Silvestre - who replaced original trial judge Alice Costa, who fell sick shortly after the trail opened - said it was Lau's idea to buy the land, describing Lo as "merely a middleman".

 

In a closed bid for the land near Macau airport in June 2005, Jones Lang LaSalle, representing Lo's Moon Ocean, bought the land for HK$1.37 billion. Lau bought 70 per cent of the company in December 2005, acquiring the remaining 30 per cent in March 2011.

 

The judge said it was suspicious that Lau signed an option agreement with Moon Ocean and offered a HK$250million loan to it soon after the company was established. Lau did not exercise the option but bought the majority of Moon Ocean shares six months after it won the bid.

 

The court earlier heard that Lau and Lo hired architecture firm Hsin Yieh to prepare designs for the land before the tender was public knowledge.

 

"Although Lo did hire Hsin Yieh for a rough study of the land, it was in fact Lau who came up with the plan," the judge said, adding: "Lo acted merely as a middleman to help [Lau] to seal the deal between him and Ao."

 

Lo's Eastern Base signed a HK$20 million contract to provide consultation services for Moon Oean, but the judge also said it was "difficult to believe" actual service was provided. The court was told the sum eventually ended up in a company controlled by Ao.

 

Lo's lawyer, Jorge Neto Valente, said Lo was "upset" at the verdict and was not in court because a doctor had advised him to get some rest.

 

Lau was also absent, like he has been for most of the proceedings due to illness.

 

Six other defendants in the case were found guilty and jailed for corruption or money laundering. They were also not in court.

(Source 1: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/first/20140315/18657189)

(Source 2: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1448455/macau-court-deliver-verdict-joseph-laus-and-steven-los-corruption)

 

麥東成律師專業失當罪成 (Solicitor Alrick Mak Tung Shing Guilty of Professional Misconduct)

Lawyer Alrick Mak Tung Shing Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 事務律師麥東成專業失當罪成

Findings and order:
7 March 2011

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following two Complaints against the Respondent proved on his own admission:

Complaint 3Breach of Principle 4.01 of the Guide in that the Respondent failed to keep his clients informed in relation to the incurring of costs in relation to a Winding Up Proceedings.

Complaint 6A (alternative to Complaints 4, 5 and 6)Breach of Principle 4.16 of the Guide and s 64 of the Legal Practitioners Ordinance (Cap 159) in that the Respondent entered into a contingency fee arrangement with his clients for acting in contentious proceedings.

By consent of the parties, Complaints 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 were not proceeded with.

On 7 March 2011, the Tribunal ordered the Respondent:

1. be censured;
2. in relation to Complaint 3, be fined the sum of HK$5000;
3. in relation to Complaint 6A, be fined the sum of HK$300,000;
4. to pay 57% of the Applicant’s costs of investigation and costs of these proceedings; and
5. to pay the costs of the Clerk.

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=431&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=431&c=121)

Solicitor Clifton Wong Guilty of Professional Misconduct (黃澤林律師專業失當罪成)

事務律師黃澤林專業失當罪成 (Lawyer Clifton Wong Guilty of Professional Misconduct)

Findings and order:
27 May 2011

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following complaint against the Respondent Solicitor Clifton Wong proved on his own admission:

Breach of Principle 14.02 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct Vol 1, 2nd Edition in that the Respondent, being a partner of Messrs Li, Wong, Lam & WI Cheung and the solicitor-in-charge of a conveyancing transaction, failed to honour the undertaking to send to the vendor’s solicitors the conveyancing documents as stated in the letter from the vendors’ solicitors dated 29 September 2009 within the stipulated time which was imposed on him in the said letter.

The Tribunal, having considered: (i) that the Respondent had expressed no remorse in his breach of the undertaking and a heavy fine may not change his attitude in honouring undertakings; and (ii) his admission of the charge and his plea of mitigation, ordered that:

1. the Respondent be censured;
2. the Respondent be fined HK$20,000.00;
3. with effect from 2 July 2011, the Respondent’s practice as a solicitor be subject to the following conditions for two years:
   1. that he cannot practise as a sole proprietor or partner of a solicitors firm; and
   2. that his practice as a solicitor be subject to the supervision of a full-time solicitor of no less than 15 years’ standing and also of good standing.
4. the Respondent pay the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the Clerk and the Law Society in investigating into the matter, such costs to be taxed, if not agreed, on a party-and-party basis.

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=430&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=430&c=121)

賴文俊律師專業失當罪成 - Solicitor Lai Man Chun Anthony Guilty of Professional Misconduct

Lawyer Anthony Lai Guilty of Professional Misconduct - 賴文俊事務律師專業失當罪成

Findings and order:
17 June 2011

On 29 February 2008, the Respondent, Solicitor Anthony Lai, received instructions from his client to pursue an employee compensation claim in District Court proceedings (‘the Case’). The Case commenced on 22 July 2008.

 His client applied for legal aid on 14 January 2009 and legal aid was granted on 23 March 2009. No counsel was assigned by the Director of Legal Aid (DLA).

The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following complaints against the Solicitor Anthony M C Lai proved on his own admission:

1. Breach of Rule 2(d) and (e) of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (SPR) in that the Respondent failed to consult and seek prior approval from the DLA to instruct counsel to attend two hearings on 24 April and 14 August 2009 in the Case.
2. Breach of Rule 2(f) of the SPR in that the Respondent failed to inform the Court in the Case that counsel had been instructed to attend the hearing on 24 April 2009 without prior approval by the DLA.
3. Breach of Rule 2(d) and (f) of the SPR in that the Respondent improperly instructed counsel to ask for legal aid costs order during the 24 April 2009 hearing in which the Court ordered that the costs of the hearing be in the cause, with Legal Aid taxation of his client’s costs but with no certificate for counsel.
4. Breach of Rule 2(d) of the SPR and Principles 5.12 and 5.17 of the Guide in that the Respondent failed to inform his client that the DLA had not assigned counsel to the Case or authorised the instructing of counsel for the Case.

The Tribunal commented that the conduct of the Respondent upset the legal aid system and had caused grave concern of the Judge in the Case and was undesirable in the public image of the profession. Whilst the Tribunal believed that it was not likely that the Respondent would repeat the same breaches in the future, it considered that appropriate censure should be imposed for his conduct.

The Tribunal, having considered the mitigation of Solicitor Lai Man Chun Anthony, ordered that:

1. the Respondent be censured;
2. the Respondent be fined HK$40,000.00; and
3. the Respondent pay the costs of these proceedings in the sum of HK$126,628 made up of the costs of the Clerk (HK$20,000), the Law Society (HK$34,836) and the Prosecutor (HK$53,632).

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=428&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=428&c=121)

鄭子駒律師專業失當罪成 - Solicitor T K Cheng Guilty of Professional Misconduct

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:

1. the Respondent be censured;
2. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 1st Complaint;
3. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 2nd Complaint;
4. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 3rd Complaint;
5. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 4th Complaint;
6. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 5th Complaint;
7. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 6th Complaint;
8. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 7th Complaint;
9. the Respondent be fined HK$5000 in relation to the 8th Complaint;
10. the Respondent be fined HK$10,000 in relation to the 9th Complaint;
11. the Respondent be fined HK$10,000 in relation to the 10th Complaint;
12. the Respondent be fined HK$15,000 in relation to the 11th Complaint;
13. 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
14. 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.

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=425&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=425&c=121)

Solicitor Jonathan Edward Spencer Rostron Guilty of Professional Misconduct (羅思川律師專業失當罪成)

羅思川律師專業失當罪成 - Lawyer Jonathan Rostron Guilty of Professional Misconduct

Reasons and order:
29 August 2011

The Hong Kong Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following two complaints against the Solicitor Jonathan Rostron proved:

1st Complaint Breach of Rule 10 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent had failed to keep properly written up books and accounts for his firm.

2nd ComplaintBreach of Rule 11 of the Solicitors’ Accounts Rules in that the Respondent had failed to produce his firm’s books and accounts to the Monitoring Accountants appointed by the Council for inspection.

The Tribunal ordered that:

1. For the 1st complaint, the Respondent be fined HK$50,000.
2. For the 2nd complaint, the Respondent be suspended for a period of three years and be subject to the condition to practice that on his resuming practice as a solicitor, for the first three years, he cannot do so as a sole-proprietor or partner of any solicitors firm and can only do so as an employed solicitor under the supervision of a solicitor of no less than 10 years’ active post-qualification experience in Hong Kong.
3. Half of the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of the Clerk, be borne and paid for by the Respondent, such costs to be taxed, if not agreed, on a party-and-party basis.

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=424&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=424&c=121)

譚大偉律師專業失當罪成 (Solicitor Tam Tai Wai Guilty of Professional Misconduct)

Lawyer Tam Tai Wai Guilty of Professional Misconduct (譚大偉律師專業失當罪成)

聆訊日期：
2013年3月12日，2013年6月6日

裁決及頒令：
2013年10月3日

根據答辯人所作的承認、經由答辯人和檢控人員簽署的「同意事實」以及由律師會呈交的證據，律師紀律審裁組(下稱「審裁組」)裁定三項針對答辯人的投訴全部證明成立。審裁組作出下述裁斷﹕

第一項投訴

違反《法律執業者條例》(第159章)第8AA條及《律師執業規則》第2(d)及(e)條,理由為答辯人未有遵守日期為2009年12月23日的查閱通知，該通知要求答辯人出示關於答辯人於2002年至2004年期間從高院民事訴訟2008年第2503號的各名原告人收取的各筆款項的所有收款紀錄(包括收據、憑單及分類帳)，以供查閱。

第二項投訴

違反《律師執業規則》第2(d)及(e)條，理由為答辯人未有完全遵守律師會理事會於2010年3月23日通過的決議,即未有立即採取步驟，把答辯人的姓名從該人獨資經營的譚大偉律師行(下稱「答辯人的律師行」)的所有客戶銀行帳戶的授權簽署人名列中移除，以及未有委任一名律師成為上述所有客戶銀行帳戶的唯一授權簽署人。

第三項投訴

違反《操守指引》原則6.04，理由為答辯人未有從速處理律師會藉着日期為2011年11月2日的信函而作出的查詢，該等查詢涉及要求答辯人就律師會對該人及答辯人的律師行進行的調查而提供進一步資料。

於2013年6月6日舉行的聆訊上，答辯人透過其代表大律師作出求情方面的陳詞。

審裁組下令﹕

1. 答辯人須受譴責﹔
2. 答辯人須支付下列罰款﹕(i)就第一項投訴,港幣30,000元﹔(ii)就第二項投訴,港幣10,000元﹔及(iii)就第三項投訴,港幣30,000元﹔
3. 答辯人須支付本紀律程序的費用，包括律師會的調查費用、律師會的代表律師的費用及審裁組書記的費用﹔假如各方未能就該等費用的金額達成協議，則須按訴訟各方對評基準評定。

 

 

Hearing date:
12 March 2013, 6 June 2013

Findings and Order:
3 October 2013

Based on the Respondent’s admission, the Agreed Facts signed by the Respondent and the Prosecutor and the evidence presented by the Law Society, the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) found that all three complaints were proved against the Respondent. The Tribunal’s findings were as follows: -

The 1st Complaint

Breach of Section 8AA of the LPO and Rule 2(d) & (e) of the SPR in that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Notice of Inspection dated 23 December 2009 requiring him to produce for inspection all receipt records (including receipts, vouchers and ledgers) in relation to the various amounts received from the Plaintiffs in HCA 2503 of 2008 over the period from 2002 to 2004.

The 2nd Complaint

Breach of Rule 2(d) and (e) of the SPR in that the Respondent had failed to comply with the Council’s resolution on 23 March 2010 in full in that he had failed to take immediate steps to remove his name from the authorized bank signatories of all the client bank accounts of Messrs. John Ku, Tam & Ho of which he is the sole proprietor (the “Respondent’s firm”) and to appoint a solicitor as the sole signatory of all such client bank accounts.

The 3rd Complaint

Breach of Principle 6.04 of the Guide in that the Respondent had failed to deal promptly with inquiries from the Law Society in its letter dated 2 November 2011 concerning the request for further information relating to the Law Society’s investigation against him and the Respondent’s firm.

At the hearing on 6 June 2013, there were mitigation submissions made on behalf of the Respondent by his Counsel.

The Tribunal ordered that:

1. the Respondent be censured;
2. the Respondent be fined: (i) HK$30,000 for the 1st Complaint; (ii) HK$10,000 for the 2nd Complaint; and (iii) HK$30,000 for the 3rd Complaint; 
3. the costs of these proceedings, including the costs of investigation by the Law Society, the Solicitor for the Law Society and the Clerk to the Tribunal, be paid by the Respondent, to be taxed on a party and party basis if not agreed.

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=1733&c=121)
(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=1733&c=121)

畢保麒律師, 馮樹華律師 及 利炳輝律師專業失當罪成 (Solicitors Bruke, Fung & Li Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct)

Lawyer Burke Patrick Michael (畢保麒律師) (R1) Lawyer Fung Shu Wah (馮樹華律師) (R2) Lawyer Li Ping Fai Tommy (利炳輝律師) (R3)

Hearing dates: 8 March 2011, 2 June 2011 and 4 August 2011
Findings and order: 19 October 2011
The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following two Complaints against the Respondents proved on their own admissions:

The 1st Complaint
Breaches of s 8 of the LPO, Rule 8 of the ARR and Principle 2.03 of the Guide in that the Respondents, being the three proprietors of Messrs Burke, Fung & Li ('the Closed Firm'), failed to provide the final accountant's report within six months of the Closed Firm ceasing business (the Closed Firm ceased practice on 30 September 2007).

The 2nd Complaint
Breach of Rule 2(d) and (e) of the SPR in that the conduct of the Respondents compromised or impaired or was likely to compromise or impair their own reputation or the reputation of the profession and a proper standard of work.

Having considered the Respondents' respective mitigation submissions (including the fact that the Closed Firm had filed its final accountant's report with the Law Society on 12 July 2011), the Tribunal ordered that:

(a) all the Respondents be censured;
(b) each Respondent be fined a sum of HK$60,000 for the 1st and 2nd Complaints; and
(c) all costs of these proceedings and prior investigation including the costs of the Clerk, the Prosecutor and the Law Society, be borne by the Respondents and to be taxed on party and party basis if not agreed.

(Source: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=1814&c=121)

Solicitor Jimmie K S Wong & Solicitor Henry Wai Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct (黃嘉錫律師 及 韋業顯律師專業失當罪成)

黃嘉錫律師 及 韋業顯律師專業失當罪成 (Lawyer Jimmie K S Wong & Lawyer Henry Wai Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct)

Lawyer Wong Ka Sek Jimmie (“the 1st Respondent”) and Lawyer Wai Yip Hin Henry (“the 2nd Respondent”) - 黃嘉錫律師 (第一答辯人) 及 韋業顯律師 (第二答辯人)

Hearing date: 11 January 2013

Findings and Order:
28 February 2013

A Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal found the following complaints against 1st Respondent and 2nd Respondent proved on their own admission :

The 1st Complaint (against the 1st Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the Solicitors’ Practice Rules (“the SPR”), (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Hong Kong Solicitors’ Guide to Professional Conduct, Volume 1, Second Edition (“the Guide”) in that the 1st Respondent shared profit costs with a legal executive during the period from 30 April 2008 to 30 September 2008 for work handled by the legal executive whilst under the employment of Messrs. Jimmie K.S. Wong & Partners (formerly known as Jimmie K.S. Wong & Company)(“Firm Wong”).

The 2nd Complaint (against the 1st Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 1st Respondent shared profit costs with a legal executive during the period from 30 April 2008 to 30 September 2008 for work handled by the legal executive whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 3rd Complaint (against the 1st Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 1st Respondent shared profit costs with a paralegal during the period from 1 September 2008 to 30 September 2008 for work handled by the paralegal whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 4th Complaint (against the 1st Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 1st Respondent shared profit costs with a trainee solicitor during the period from 30 April 2008 to 30 September 2008 for work handled by the trainee solicitor whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 5th Complaint (against the 2nd Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 2nd Respondent shared profit costs with a legal executive (the same person as mentioned in the 1st Complaint) on 30 September 2008 for work handled by the legal executive whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 6th Complaint (against the 2nd Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 2nd Respondent shared profit costs with a legal executive (the same person as mentioned in the 2nd Complaint) on 30 September 2008 for work done by the legal executive whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 7th Complaint (against the 2nd Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 2nd Respondent shared profit costs with a paralegal (the same person as mentioned in the 3rd Complaint) on 30 September 2008 for work handled by the paralegal whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

The 8th Complaint (against the 2nd Respondent)
Breaches of (1) Rule 4 of the SPR, (2) Principle 2.03 and (3) Principle 4.15 of the Guide in that the 2nd Respondent shared profit costs with a trainee solicitor (the same person as mentioned in the 4th Complaint) on 30 September 2008 for work handled by the trainee solicitor whilst under the employment of Firm Wong.

And upon hearing the mitigation submissions made on behalf of both Respondents, the Tribunal ordered, inter alia, that:

1. In respect of the 1st to 4th Complaints, the 1st Respondent be censured and fined $10,000;
2. In respect of the 5th to 8th Complaints, the 2nd Respondent be censured and fined $10,000; and
3. The 1st and 2nd Respondents do pay on an equal basis all costs of and incidental to the proceedings, including the costs of the Prosecutor and the Tribunal Clerk and the costs of the Law Society’s prior investigation and enquiries, such costs to be taxed if not agreed.

 

 

聆訊日期：
2013年1月11日

裁斷及命令：
2013年2月28日

律師紀律審裁組裁斷針對第一答辯人及第二答辯人作出的以下各項申訴在他們認罪下證明屬實：

第一項申訴（針對第一答辯人）
第一答辯人受僱於黃嘉錫律師事務所（前稱Jimmie K.S. Wong & Company）（下稱「黃行」）時，於2008年4月30日至2008年9月30日期間，就一名法律行政人員處理的工作，與該名法律行政人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《執業律師規則》（下稱「《規則》」）第4條規則、(2)《香港律師專業操守指引》第二版第一冊（下稱「《指引》」）第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》第4.15條原則。

第二項申訴（針對第一答辯人）
第一答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年4月30日至2008年9月30日期間，就一名法律行政人員處理的工作，與該名法律行政人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第三項申訴（針對第一答辯人）
第一答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年9月1日至2008年9月30日期間，就一名法律輔助人員處理的工作，與該名法律輔助人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第四項申訴（針對第一答辯人）
第一答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年4月30日至2008年9月30日期間，就一名實習律師處理的工作，與該名實習律師分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第五項申訴（針對第二答辯人）
第二答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年9月30日，就一名法律行政人員（於第一項申訴中所提及的同一人）處理的工作，與該名法律行政人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第六項申訴（針對第二答辯人）
第二答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年9月30日，就一名法律行政人員（於第二項申訴中所提及的同一人）處理的工作，與該名法律行政人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第七項申訴（針對第二答辯人）
第二答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年9月30日，就一名法律輔助人員（於第三項申訴中所提及的同一人）處理的工作，與該名法律輔助人員分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

第八項申訴（針對第二答辯人）
第二答辯人受僱於黃行時，於2008年9月30日，就一名實習律師（於第四項申訴中所提及的同一人）處理的工作，與該名實習律師分享利潤收費，因而違反(1)《規則》的第4條規則、(2)《指引》的第2.03條原則及 (3)《指引》的第4.15條原則。

審裁組於聽取代表兩名答辯人作出的請求減輕判處陳詞後，作出以下命令（除其他事項外）：

1. 就第一至第四項申訴，對第一答辯人施以譴責，並罰款一萬元；
2. 就第五至第八項申訴，對第二答辯人施以譴責，並罰款一萬元；
3. 第一及第二答辯人須平均承擔有關法律程序的所有訟費及附帶費用，包括有關檢控員及審裁組書記的費用，以及律師會事先進行調查的費用，若未能就此等費用達成協議，則有待評定。

 

(Source 1: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/en/article.asp?articleid=975&c=121)

(Source 2: http://www.hk-lawyer.org/tc/article.asp?articleid=975&c=121)

楊家誠洗黑錢判囚六年 (Carson Yeung Sentenced to 6 Years' Imprisonment for Money Laundering)

英冠球會伯明翰前班主楊家誠（54歲）(Carson Yeung) 涉清洗7.2億元黑錢一案，早前被裁定5項洗黑錢罪成，昨被判監6年。辯方求情時指控方未能證明本案背後涉及其他罪案，亦不涉及國際因素，而楊更不能被視作洗黑錢主腦。楊出身寒微，白手興家，又曾捐獻近5,000萬元人民幣巨款作慈善用途，法官稱判刑已反映這些因素

英冠球會伯明翰前班主楊家誠（54歲）涉清洗7.2億元黑錢一案，早前被裁定5項洗黑錢罪成，昨被判監6年。辯方求情時指控方未能證明本案背後涉及其他罪案，亦不涉及國際因素，而楊更不能被視作洗黑錢主腦。楊出身寒微，白手興家，又曾捐獻近5,000萬元人民幣巨款作慈善用途，法官稱判刑已反映這些因素。

　　雖非主謀亦難卸責

 

　　法官游德康判刑時表示，香港是國際金融城市，法庭必須嚴懲有關洗黑錢罪行，以向公眾發出正確訊息。根據法例，洗黑錢最高刑罰是入獄14年及罰款500萬元，考慮被告罪行涉及香港及澳門跨境洗黑錢勾當，涉及金額高達7.2億元，認為被告個人背景和求情信件，不是減刑的求情因素。

 

　　法官又指，雖然楊家誠並非今次洗黑錢的主謀，但若少了楊的股票財技，就不能清洗黑錢長達近6年。惟考慮被告曾捐近5,000萬元人民幣成立基金等公益活動，乃判楊入獄6年。

 

　　楊家誠被控於2001至2007年間，利用自己和父親名下的五個銀行戶口，處理7.2億元犯罪得益。警方對判決感到鼓舞，認為刑期合理。

(Source 1: http://www.singpao.com/xw/gat/201403/t20140308_493390.html)
(Source 2: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140307/-2-3206962/1.html)
(Source 3: http://www.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=23013142&extra=page%3D1&page=1)

商人楊家誠洗黑錢罪名成立，判監6年。法官判刑時指，楊家誠在審訊時說謊誤導法庭，強調判刑要具阻嚇力，以維護香港作為國際金融中心的地位。法庭下月會再召開聆訊，研究他4億元的財產有多少需要充公。

54歲的楊家誠聽取判刑後，隨即由囚車押往監獄服刑，他在庭上表現平靜，又向朋友揮手道別。他的代表律師認為判刑較重。

法官游德康判刑時指，香港要維持國際金融中心的地位，判刑必須具阻嚇性，向公眾發出信息，法庭會阻止和全力打擊洗黑錢這類濫用銀行系統的罪行。

楊家誠在港澳兩地洗黑錢，是跨境犯罪，又在作供期間說謊，誤導法庭。最後雖然證實實際交易涉及4.49億，但法官認為對判刑影響不大，指該筆仍是巨額款項，亦是長時期的犯罪行為。

楊家誠代表律師呈上包括由楊家誠兒子等人撰寫的多封求情信，又指楊家誠出身寒微。不過，法官認為，楊家誠的個人背景對判刑不太重要。法庭已考慮了楊家誠過往有慈善捐款，認為以6年為量刑起點恰當。

楊家誠5項洗黑錢罪，分別判監2年至6年，全部同期執行，需要即時入獄6年。警方對裁決感鼓舞，指是在2008年收到舉報後展開調查，不排除案件牽涉更多人，又指洗黑錢案主要靠線報揭發，呼籲公眾要舉報。

控方較早前申請充公楊家誠被凍結的4億多元資產，法庭將於4月3日處理。

胡國興狠批暫委特委裁判官侯焯汶所撰寫的裁斷陳述書寫得「滿目瘡痍、招人疑慮」

Deputy Special Magistrate HAU Cheuk-man Heavily Criticized by DHCJ Woo

胡國興狠批暫委特委裁判官侯焯汶所撰寫的裁斷陳述書寫得「滿目瘡痍、招人疑慮」

狠批判決滿目瘡痍 官質疑下級法官水平

高等法院暫委法官胡國興，今就一宗不小心駕駛上訴案頒下判詞，指原審的暫委特委裁判官侯焯汶當日所撰寫的裁斷陳述書寫得「滿目瘡痍、招人疑慮」、直指「可能令市民對司法人員的專業水平及態度減低，甚至失去信心」。

事緣上訴人林博文於2012年10月2日在油麻地弼街東行時，被指突然右轉而撞到右邊的私家車。原審裁判官在看罷上訴人車上攝錄器所拍下的影片後，認為被撞車輛一直在上訴人車後不遠處，裁定上訴人不小心駕駛。惟胡國興法官則指，錄影片段只看到撞車的一刻，不能證明原審裁判官所指的情況，胡官又指，原審裁判官的裁斷陳述書寫屢次將證人身分寫錯，值得商榷，最後胡官裁定上訴人上訴得直，案件亦毋須發還重審。

(Source 1: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140310/52267064)

(Source 2: http://www.discuss.com.hk/viewthread.php?tid=23035901&extra=page%3D1)

 

The Standard (Tuesday, March 11, 2014)

The High Court has set free a man convicted of careless driving after criticizing the magistrate (Deputy Special Magistrate HAU Cheuk-man) who found him guilty.

 

High Court judge Woo Kwok-hing said the ruling of the magistrate (Deputy Special Magistrate HAU Cheuk-man) was so poorly written it could weaken public confidence in the professional standards of judicial officers.

 

The driver, Baldwin Lam Pok-man, had been convicted in the Kowloon City Magistrates' Court of careless driving that caused an accident in Yau Ma Tei on October 2, 2012.

 

Lam was accused of making a sudden right turn and colliding with a vehicle on Bute Street near Canton Road. Lam appealed against the conviction.

 

In clearing Lam, Woo criticized Deputy Special Magistrate HAU Cheuk-man for basing his judgment on a video clip taken by a camera in Lam's vehicle.

 

Woo said the video showed only the moment of the crash and did not prove what Hau said was the closeness of the two vehicles before the accident.

 

Woo said Hau's judgment was riddled with holes and could weaken public confidence in judicial officers.

 

Deputy Special Magistrate HAU Cheuk-man was recently reappointed deputy special magistrate from October 2013 to April 2014.

 

Woo said the verdict would allow people to criticize judgments.

 

"It could cause citizens to reduce or even lose confidence in the professional standards and [working] attitude of judicial officers," Woo said.

 

"If [what was stated] in the judgment really was what the magistrate [Hau] meant, undoubtedly, the sentencing was not made on a sound basis."

 

Woo said Deputy Special Magistrate HAU Cheuk-man had wrongly deduced that since the collision occurred within two to three seconds of Lam making a right turn, the other vehicle must have been very close. Hau also said Lam did not pay attention to road conditions on his right when he was making the right turn.

 

Woo pointed out that the video clip did not show the exact location of the other vehicle before the collision. It is possible the other vehicle was traveling at high speed and consequently it could not be proved that Lam was driving carelessly.

 

"The judgment was not the result of a mistaken inference, but an inaccurate decision or understanding," Woo said. He cleared Lam of his conviction and said a retrial was unnecessary.

 

(Source 3: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=91948&currpage=T)

(Source 4: http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?we_cat=11&art_id=143338&sid=41774494&con_type=1&d_str=20140311&fc=1)

Lawyer Stanley Ma Guilty of Stealing a Woman's Bra (大狀馬浩輝偷胸圍罪成)

Counsel Stanley Ma Guilty of Stealing a Woman's Bra (馬浩輝大律師偷胸圍罪成)

 

(South China Morning Post, 30 November 2010)

 

ATV reporter-turned-barrister Stanley Ma Ho-fai (馬浩輝大律師) could not keep his fingers off a bra, an Eastern Court magistrate decided yesterday.

 

Barrister Stanley Ma, 44, was found guilty of theft for stealing a HK$350 white bra with red lace from a Peng Chau resident's drying rack in May. He was convicted after trial and fined HK$3,000.

Lawyer Stanley Ma Ho Fai, a journalist for 12 years before joining the bar in October 2000, had a clear record before yesterday, his lawyer said.

'The verdict is the biggest punishment already,' lawyer Martin Lee Chu-ming, senior counsel, said in mitigation to Magistrate Jason Wan Siu-ming yesterday.

'Even if you gave him no penalty, he would have suffered a great blow,' he said.

The magistrate acknowledged that Barrister Ma Ho Fai had a good background and profession, and agreed the conviction would be damaging.

Lawyer Ma Ho Fai had removed his name from the Bar List.

A notice of appeal was filed immediately after the verdict yesterday.

During the trial, Cheng Lai-chun, testified that she had spotted a man taking the bra from a neighbour's drying rack after seeing that her dog was watching something outside her window on May 3.

Cheng said she saw a man outside with his back to her holding a bag with one hand and appearing to put things in it with the other. Women's underwear was on the rack, she said.

The court heard that a wallet containing Ma's bank, credit, university access and Bar Association cards was found in a bin on the island on the day of the theft.

Cheng reported the case to police, and later identified Barrister Stanley Ma Fo Fai outside a restaurant near the island's pier.

Ma denied the allegations.

During the trial, Lee faulted the police for not holding a proper identification parade. They decided against doing so because they were unsure Cheng could identify him in a line-up, Lee said.

In giving his verdict yesterday, the magistrate said he found Cheng an honest and reliable witness, and rejected the suggestion of an intentional arrangement in the identification parade.

There was abundant evidence to convict Ma, he said.

Lee said during the trial that the prosecution had accused Ma of being a poor thief for leaving his wallet behind after stealing the bra.

However, the lack of an identification parade meant the possibility could not be ruled out that someone might have stolen Ma's wallet as well as the bra before dumping them in the bin.

The Bar Council of the Hong Kong Bar Association said it would not comment on the conviction of any individual barrister until it had fully considered the matter.

 

(Source 1: http://www.scmp.com/article/732028/barrister-found-guilty-stealing-hk350-bra)

(Source 2: http://hknewsarchives.blogspot.hk/2013/09/Barrister-Stanley-Ma.html)

(Source 3: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=16084089&extra=page%3D9)