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)

黃文廸 鄒芷喬 急症室辱罵醫生「讀屎片」被判罰款

育有一對子女的同居男女，於去年4月18日帶著初生女兒到屯門醫院急症室求診，遇上有病人需醫生進行搶救，男女見等候多時女兒仍未獲安排見醫生，在急症室內用粗口辱罵醫生，又指醫生「讀屎片」，最終兩人被票控違反《醫院管理局附例》，經審訊後今被裁定罪名成立。

被告黃文廸（31歲）及正懷孕的鄒芷喬（21歲），今被裁判官指斥兩人行為渲染暴力，亦被罵醫生受驚及不愉快，判兩人罰款各2,000元。

(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/realtime/news/20140217/52196972)

上市公司永義國際（1218）前主席官永義被控串謀勒索

【明報專訊】上市公司永義國際（1218）前主席官永義涉於2009年串謀4名男子勒索中聯石化（346、現名延長石油國際）前主席許智明，促使他把1億股股份無條件轉讓予他們。隨後疑食髓知味，再度勒索，要求許智明轉讓共4億股股份，其間有人涉亮槍恐嚇，威脅會傷害許的一家、要把許扔進公海「餵鯊魚」等。

 

官永義等涉勒索4億股份

 

案件昨在高院開審。5名被告依次為官永義（57 歲）、證券公司東主吳志強（71 歲）、電影公司製作顧問黃展億（61歲）、商人陳桂南（62 歲）及岑文強（59歲），共被控兩項串謀勒索罪及一項盜竊罪，黃展億另被控一項勒索罪及一項在犯勒索罪時管有槍械罪，案發時間橫跨2009年3月某日至5月13日。

 

控方開案陳辭透露，2009年官永義透過吳志強認識許智明。同年3月，官向許稱，因投資許的公司中聯石化損失大量金錢，要求許「免費」把1億股股份轉讓給他。許拒絕，指官須承受投資者風險，官憤而離開。

 

其後第3被告黃展億連同7至8名不知名、揹着背囊的人到許的辦公室作同樣要求，許再度拒絕，眾人揚言會放火燒其辦公室。許聽到背囊內物件碰撞的聲音，相信這些人會對他不利，最終這些人表示會給許3天時間考慮.

 

事主屈服 被告毁協議即套現

 

翌日，官與吳再到許的公司，指黃是黑道中人，同樣因投資許的公司有損失，恐嚇許若不照其說話做會有嚴重後果。許最終屈服，以低於市場價值的1.35億元向第三者買入1億股中聯石化，並按指示把股份轉讓給陳桂南。為免影響股價，雙方原協議3個月內不得出售股票，陳桂南卻於翌日把股份以7700萬元轉售他人，套現大量現金。

 

最多控罪被告 涉亮槍恐嚇

 

同年4月24日，黃再致電許，要求多1億股股份，稱許若不答應，會傷害其家人；之後又聯同其他被告不斷出招恐嚇許，包括恐嚇把許扔進公海「餵鯊魚」等，又一度令許以為被跟蹤。黃最終於同年5月10日單人匹馬約許在九龍麽地道帝苑酒店見面，要求許再交出3億股股份，其間更涉嫌揭開外套露出類似手槍物體。審訊今續。

 

【案件編號：HCCC66/10】

 

(Source: http://news.sina.com.hk/news/20140212/-2-3186658/1.html)

Barrister Li Chau Yuen SC's Submission "Wholly Unsustainable" and Had "No Substance" - Said Poon J (法官說李秋源資深大律師的陳詞是無法維持及不真實的)

Senior Counsel C Y Li SC's Submission "Wholly Unsustainable" and Had "No Substance" - Said Poon J (法官說李秋源資深大律師的陳詞是無法維持及不真實的)

 

HCAL 72/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 72 OF 2011

_______________

 

BETWEEN
	吳文演	1st Applicant
	吳純純	2nd Applicant
and
	人事登記審裁處	Respondent
	COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION	Interested Party

 

_______________

 

 

Before : Hon Poon J in Court
Date of Hearing : 16-17 October 2013 and 10 December 2013
Date of Judgment : 29 January 2014

 

 

________________

 

JUDGMENT

________________

 

 

69....  Mr Li submitted in effect that since the Commissioner’s case against the applicants is based on the allegation that the 1^st applicant had obtained the OWP unlawfully, which is criminal in nature, this entails the Tribunal applying the criminal standard of proof.  [Barrister Mr C Y Li SC's] submission is wholly unsustainable...

 

80.... I can see no substance in any of the points taken by [Senior Counsel Li Chau Yuen SC]...

 

(Source 1: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=91306&QS=%28%7B%E5%90%B3%E6%96%87%E6%BC%94%7D+%25parties%29&TP=JU)

 

(Source 2: http://www.hklii.hk/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/2014/143.html)