Author Archives: admin

District Court Judge acquits defendants of Money Laundering involving HK$54 million.

D1 and D2 (who were de facto husband and wife) faced a total of 9 counts of money laundering alongside with 7 other defendants. The prosecution’s case against D1 and D2 is that their various bank accounts and D1’s Hong Kong Jockey Club (“HKJC”) account had a large amount of cash transactions which were “disproportionate” to the income declared on their tax return, and two ATM cards belonging to other persons were discovered at the residence of D1 and D2’s family.

All defendants made applications for permanent stay of proceedings. After hearing evidence and detailed submissions, the Court stayed the proceedings of D8 and D9.

Both D1 and D2 were arrested but released unconditionally more than 10 years ago. While DDJ Don So rejected D1 and D2’s application for permanent stay of proceedings, the Court recognised that the passage of time naturally made it difficult for them to recollect the details of the transactions in question. Considering the voluminous defence exhibits tendered, the Judge accepted D2’s evidence in Court (for herself and as a defence witness of D1) as well as that of other defence witnesses.

The Judge found that the large amount of cash transactions in D1 and D2’s accounts can be explained by their cash-intensive businesses, including a bakery, a tuck shop, a massage parlour, and an importing business. There is also evidence that D1 and D2 engaged in the trading of taxi licences and various financial instruments. These facts are sufficient to demonstrate D1 and D2’s wealth, and these income sources are not taxable and therefore would not be reflected in their tax returns. Evidence also shows that D1 has an active habit of gambling, both in cash with his friends and with the HKJC. This explains the large amount of transactions in his HKJC account.

As for the ATM cards, the Court agreed with the defence submissions that the cards being found in D1’s and D2’s abode per se is insufficient to show that D1 had any knowledge of their existence, let alone his having possession of the same or his handling of the money therein.

Accordingly, D1 and D2 were found not guilty of all charges. All other defendants in the case were also acquitted.

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui for D1 and D2 in the 26-day trial. The Reasons for Verdict was published on https://lnkd.in/gHDsDaYZ

Single Judge of the Court of Appeal granted bail pending appeal to an Applicant convicted in the District Court of Handling Proceeds of Crime (commonly known as money laundering).

The Applicant (who was D1 at trial) pleaded not guilty to a charge of money laundering and stood trial before HHJ Stanley Chan. The charge, which took place in or about mid-autumn festival in September 2015, was that a company which D1 was the sole director, sole shareholder, and sole signatory of the bank account thereof, handled proceeds of crime of a mooncake coupon scam. After an unsuccessful application for permanent stay of proceeding, D1 was convicted after trial. The Judge sentenced D1 to a prison term of 33 months.

In his Reasons for Verdict, the Judge said “[62]. A defendant does not have to prove anything. 𝐻𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑟, 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑐ℎ𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑦 𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑔, 𝑎 𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑎𝑛𝑡 ℎ𝑎𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐶𝑜𝑢𝑟𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 ℎ𝑒 ℎ𝑎𝑑 𝑛𝑜 𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑠 𝑡𝑜 𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑖𝑒𝑣𝑒 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝐴/𝐶 1 𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑒 𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑖𝑛 𝑤ℎ𝑜𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡, 𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑜𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑙𝑦 𝑟𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑑𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑎𝑛 𝑖𝑛𝑑𝑖𝑐𝑡𝑎𝑏𝑙𝑒 𝑜𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 As the account holder of A/C 1, it is no doubt that D1 did deal with the proceeds, even though it was allegedly also done by [his elder brother]”. The Judge also said that “[61]. …𝘈𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘶𝘭𝘵 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘦𝘹𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘪𝘢𝘣𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘣𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘰𝘵𝘢𝘭 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳.”

Hon K Yeung J held that there was “𝒄𝒍𝒆𝒂𝒓 𝒇𝒐𝒓𝒄𝒆” in the Applicant’s submission that the Judge held the view that a defendant in a money laundering charge had the onus of disproving knowledge. Further, the Judge did not make any reference to or mention of the Court of Final Appeal authority of 𝑯𝒂𝒓𝒋𝒂𝒏𝒊 𝑯𝒂𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒉 𝑴𝒖𝒓𝒍𝒊𝒅𝒉𝒂𝒓 (2019) 22 HKCFAR 446 (which requires a court to consider the perception and/or bias one may have). Bail pending appeal was granted on merits basis.

Simon So appeared with Herman Ho for D1 in the 8-day trial before HHJ Stanely Chan. The Reasons for Verdict and the Reasons for Sentence could be found in https://lnkd.in/g2Ki7gVx and https://lnkd.in/gx_BRuzh respectively.

Simon So appeared with Herman Ho and Jack Hui in making an application for bail pending appeal. The Judgment was published on https://lnkd.in/gEVT-wS9.

Deputy District Judge Winnie Lau found a 30-year-old defendant not guilty of possession of firearms and ammunition.

In June 2020, the police raided the Defendant’s home where the followings were found: (i) an exhibit bearing the appearance of a Glock 17 pistol with a magazine allegedly found inside (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐏𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐥”); (ii) an exhibit bearing the appearance of an AR 15 rifle with a muzzle device at the muzzle end (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐑𝐢𝐟𝐥𝐞”); (iii) three stand-alone magazines; and (iv) 53 cartridge cases. It was an agreed fact that the Defendant did not possess any firearms licence. In two video-recorded interviews (“𝐕𝐑𝐈”), the Defendant explained to the police that the exhibits were only toy/dummy guns and they did not have the function to discharge missiles/bullets. The Defendant is an “airsoft/toy gun fanatic” and possessed the exhibits (together with many other toy guns not seized by the police) for collection purposes.

In finding the Defendant not guilty, the Judge found that the evidence of the Defendant had not been undermined under cross-examination and his evidence in the VRIs and in the witness box was true. The Judge could not rule out the possibility that the Defendant did not know the true nature of the exhibits, being regulated by the Firearms and Ammunition Ordinance (“𝐅𝐀𝐎”). The Judge further noted that the Pistol and the Rifle did not have any firing function, nor were the police able to find any suitable tool(s) and/or raw material(s) for reactivating the Pistol and/or the Rifle. Further, the Judge found the expert report on the functionality of the Magazines unreliable as the expert did not set out the steps and procedures conducted to test their functionality, which was inconsistent with the expert reports for other exhibits. Finally, the Judge was persuaded that there was a real possibility that the Defendant used the cartridges for personal and/or household adornment purposes and, hence, they fall under the exception provision of the FAO.

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui for the Defendant in the trial which lasted for 12 days, spanning from November 2024 to October 2025.

Prosecution offered no further evidence after defence objected to the admissibility of crucial prosecution evidence.

The defendant was charged with Letting Premises to be Used as a Vice Establishment. It is the common ground that the Defendant was one of the joint tenants of a premises situated at Mut Wah Street (物華街), Kwun Tong (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐥𝐚𝐭”). After the Defendant formally pleaded not guilty, the prosecution applied to adduce and rely on three “warning notices” (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐞𝐬”) issued to and received by the defendant which stated respectively that various females (on various dates) told various unknown undercover officer(s) that she/they was/were a prostitute and invited him/them to go to the Flat for sex. However, neither the female(s) nor the undercover officer(s) were intended to be called by the prosecution as witnesses. The Defence objected to the admissibility of the Notices on the basis that they were (i) irrelevant; (ii) hearsay; (iii) impermissible implied assertion; and/or (iv) prejudicial (and outweighs its probative value).

After taking time to consider the defendant’s submissions, the prosecution decided to offer no further evidence against the defendant and the defendant was acquitted.

Simon So appeared with Herman Ho for the Defendant in the trial, which was initially listed for 2 days.

Magistrate Byron Tsang acquitted the defendant, a 15-year-old boy at the time of the incident, of raping a then 15-year-old girl.

The Prosecution’s case (which is also common ground) is that the Defendant (“𝗗”) came to know the complainant (“𝗫”) when he visited her place of work (a restaurant) with, amongst others, a common friend between them. X then took an interest in D and asked for his contact information. D later accompanied X to get a tongue piercing, and the two rode bikes with D’s friends at night a few times. During one of the said bike rides and through WhatsApp, X confessed her romantic feelings towards D and asked if D could become her boyfriend. D, nonetheless, repeatedly rejected X as he was still “𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹(-𝘨𝘪𝘳𝘭𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥)”. Nevertheless, X persisted and even offered to pay D HK$ 200,000 and threatened to commit suicide when she once visited D’s home on an uninvited basis during midnight hours seeking to talk to him.

The Prosecution alleged that one night (which was approximately a week after X came to know D), D and a few friends went to X’s place of work and allegedly forced her to go home with them to play mahjong. X alleged that D took her personal belongings and she had no option but to comply. X alleged that D raped her in D’s own bedroom on the following morning, with one of D’s friends listening to the whole incident in the living room.

Having heard the evidence and viewed the WhatsApp records between the two, the Court found X’s evidence incredible and acquitted D of rape. Magistrate Byron Tsang noted that during the alleged rape, even as described by X, there were plenty of opportunities where D had no control over X’s body. However, X made no effort to resist D, nor did she ever attempt to escape. X’s behaviour after the incident was even more confusing – she left D’s bedroom after allegedly being raped, but then shortly went back in, slept together with D on the same bed until the afternoon, with D spooning her from behind. X then said that after she left D’s home, X (on her own volition and verified by CCTV footage) went back to D’s home. In the WhatsApp conversation between X and D immediately after the incident, her only complaints against D were that D “𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 [𝘟] 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨” and X lost her AirPods. The Court noted that X had the tendency to use “𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭” as an answer when questions detrimental to her case were put to her, but was well able to remember details in her favour.

The Court therefore could not draw the only irresistible inference that X and D had sexual intercourse, nor that X did not consent to that.

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui for the Defendant in the juvenile court in the 9-day trial.

In quashing D5’s conviction of “assisting an unauthorized entrant to remain in Hong Kong”, the Court of Appeal (“𝐂𝐀”) held that the earlier CA decision of 𝒀𝒆𝒖𝒏𝒈 𝑲𝒂𝒎 𝒀𝒖𝒆𝒏 was per incuriam (𝑣𝑖𝑧 wrong in law).

The prosecution’s case was that D5 procured sexual services from D1. To do so, D5 booked a hotel room for 16 days and paid for it. The Prosecution’s case was that D1 was an unauthorized entrant (“𝐔𝐄”). Having pleaded not guilty, D5 (together with another defendant, D4) stood trial before HH Judge E Yip. The Judge rejected D5’s evidence and said that D1 could not have so easily deceived him. The Judge found that D5 had reasonable grounds to suspect D1 to be a UE but failed to exercise reasonable diligence to discover her status and booked a room for D1. D5 was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. Bail pending appeal was granted in 2023 by Hon Anthea Pang JA.

CA took the chance to review the statutory defence and considered the nature of the offence. CA found that the offence fell under the 4th Alternative under Court of Final Appeal’s judgments of 𝑯𝒊𝒏 𝑳𝒊𝒏 𝒀𝒆𝒆 and 𝑲𝒖𝒍𝒆𝒎𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒏 – where by a defendant has an evidential burden to raise as an issue that all three conditions under the ordinance do not apply, and the prosecution has to fulfil the persuasive burden to prove the subsistence of any of the three conditions: [43]. In reaching that decision, CA also considered whether the earlier decision (differently constituted) of 𝒀𝒆𝒖𝒏𝒈 𝑲𝒂𝒎 𝒀𝒖𝒆𝒏 (dealing with the offence of “assisting the passage to Hong Kong of a conveyance which carried UE”) was correct. CA considered Simon So’s text 𝑳𝒂𝒘 𝒐𝒇 𝑬𝒗𝒊𝒅𝒆𝒏𝒄𝒆 𝒊𝒏 𝑯𝒐𝒏𝒈 𝑲𝒐𝒏𝒈 (2nd edition) and, citing with agreement, found that 𝒀𝒆𝒖𝒏𝒈 𝑲𝒂𝒎 𝒀𝒖𝒆𝒏 was 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑖𝑛𝑐𝑢𝑟𝑖𝑎𝑚: [46]-[49].

CA concluded that the Judge’s reasoning in rejecting D5’s version was flawed: [64]-[70]. In particular, the Judge had, in strong terms, criticised D5 to be “lying” of which CA was not convinced by the reasons provided. Further, CA considered there was a danger that D5’s perceived lies became a substitute that D5 knew/suspected D1 was an UE: [69]. CA further sounded an additional observation that this offence required the Secretary for Justice’s consent and that such consent is more than a mere formality: [73]. It added that, should the evidence before the court be the entirety of the evidence available to the prosecution, careful thought should have been given to whether prosecution for this specific offence was appropriate and justified: [74].

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui before the rolled-up hearing for D5 in the Full Bench of the Court of Appeal. The full judgment was published on https://lnkd.in/g7zMbGST. They also applied for bail pending appeal in 2023 before Hon Anthea Pang JA, which was granted by Her Ladyship.

Court of Appeal, constituted of Macrae CJHC (Ag), Zervos JA, and Anthea Pang JA quashed murder conviction of the appellant on the basis of admitted fresh evidence.

The appellant admitted to killing his father (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐝”) but denied premeditation. He pleaded guilty to manslaughter but not guilty to murder and stood trial before Hon Joseph Yau J. The jury convicted the appellant, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment.

On appeal, the appellant complained, amongst other things, that the appellant did not have a fair trial as the prosecution had put to the appellant that he lied about the deceased had called the appellant the day before the killing (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐌𝐢𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐥”). As a result of that line of cross-examination, the Judge gave a lie direction to the jury. Fresh evidence later confirmed the call did occur, undermining the prosecution’s attack on the appellant’s credibility and raising concerns about the fairness of the trial.

The Court of Appeal held that the allegation that the appellant lied about the Missing Call constituted a material irregularity, as it directly affected his credibility before the jury. The Court of Appeal decided to allow the admission of fresh evidence to allow the Missing Call to be considered on appeal. The Court of Appeal declined to invoke the 𝑝𝑟𝑜𝑣𝑖𝑠𝑜 and ordered the appeal be allowed with the murder conviction quashed and the life sentence set aside.

Simon So appeared as a led-junior with Prof Simon N.M. Young for the Appellant both in obtaining leave to appeal before Hon Zervos JA (leave judgment at [2022] HKCA 1777: https://lnkd.in/gHcwT9u6) and the Full Court before Hon Macrae VP, Zervos, and Anthea Pang JJA (judgment before Full Court at [2025] HKCA 719: https://lnkd.in/gJmeHEnA).

Ag Principal Magistrate Karen Leung sentenced a 30-year-old defendant to 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years after he pleaded guilty to handling HK$ 1.4 million proceeds of crime.

In December 2018, PW reported to the police that he had been intimidated by loan sharks after failing to repay his loan. PW revealed that he received a cold call and asked whether he wanted to borrow some money. After indicating that he wanted to take out a loan, the loan sharks then requested that he provide his address, HKID, and the names of his parents to obtain the loan. He was given a designated account to repay the loan. Police investigation revealed that the Defendant was the account holder of the designated account. Upon arrest, the Defendant said under the video-recorded interview that he received a cold call and was asked if he wanted to borrow some money. Like PW, he indicated he wanted to take out a loan and was asked to provide personal particulars. He was further asked to start an account and pledge his ATM card with the password of the same to the loan shark. He cancelled the account after he received bank statements showing suspicious transactions as he was afraid. The Defendant was put on police bail for around 6 months and, thereafter, unconditionally discharged. After around 6 years, he was called by the police, re-arrested, and charged in 2025. The Defendant pleaded guilty.

After obtaining a background report from the Defendant, and hearing full submissions from both the prosecution and the defence, the Magistrate agreed with the defence submissions that there were exceptional circumstances in the present case. Not only were the facts different from classic money laundering cases, but there were also delay in the prosecution. The Defendant also had a legitimate expectation when he was released that the matter was over. Throughout the years, the Defendant had a clear record. The Defendant’s financial condition also improved and the chance of re-offending was slim. The Defendant also had established a career and was prepared to enter into matrimony. The Court agreed that rehabilitation should be a weighty factor in sentencing the Defendant. Whilst agreeing that money laundering cases usually attract an immediate custodial sentence, the Court was persuaded by authorities and defence submissions that the custodial sentence should be suspended in this case.

Simon So appeared with Herman Ho for the Defendant for plea and mitigation.

DHCJ Edmond Lee allowed an appeal against conviction on the basis that the trial was unfair.

The Appellant Company (A1) faced a summons offence of failing to pay upon termination of an employment contract. A1’s director (i.e. A2) faced a summons offence for failing to do so as the director of the employer. One of the grounds of appeal was that the trial magistrate failed to conduct the trial fairly. For instance, the trial magistrate failed to allow the appellants to apply for the audio recordings of the trial and/or transcripts, so that a legal representative could be instructed to represent them. The prosecution, upon considering the appellants’ representations, reasonably conceded the appeal. DHCJ Edmond Lee agreed the same upon considering all the circumstances and quashed the conviction.

Simon So represented the 1st appellant in the appeal against conviction. The full judgment was published on https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=170691&currpage=T.

DHCJ Edmond Lee quashed a conviction of possession of offensive weapon (namely two plastic “sticks”) on the basis that the prosecution’s case contained lurking doubt.

The Appellant faced a charge of possession of offensive weapon, namely two plastic “sticks” (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐄𝐱𝐡𝐢𝐛𝐢𝐭𝐬”), when he was driving a private vehicle in Mongkok in 2023. He pleaded not guilty and stood trial before a Deputy Magistrate. The prosecution relied upon an alleged oral confession of the defendant, who said ”I used these two plastic sticks to protect myself and for self defence, give me a chance please” (呢兩條膠條我用嚟防身自衛，比次機會啦。) (“𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐀𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐠𝐞𝐝 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐟𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧”). Despite the objection, the Magistrate ruled that the Alleged Confession was admissible. The Appellant called himself, his friend (Lee) (who was in the Appellant’s vicinity at the time when stopped by police officers) and Lee’s sister. The defence case was that the Exhibits were used to elevate the washing machine in the home of Lee’s sister as water was coming out therefrom. The elevated washing machine could facilitate Lee’s sister to dry the water coming out from the machine. The Magistrate rejected the entirety of the defence case and convicted the Appellant. He was sentenced to 2 months ‘ immediate imprisonment. On application, bail pending appeal was granted.

On appeal, DHCJ Edmond Lee found that the prosecution’s case led him with doubt:-

(1) The Exhibits itself was not only blunt but also not thick (50 cm (l) x 4 cm (w) x 1 cm (h)). The Court considered that even if being used, the harm it could create is not only not large, but it would also not even cause much of a threat to others: [40].

(2) Further, the Court noted that police officers at the scene never took photos of how the Exhibits were placed inside the vehicles and whether other renovation-related apparatus (namely gloves, hammer(s), and/or clamp(s)) existed. The Court found it “strange” that police officers repeatedly said under cross-examination that he “could not remember” whether there were renovation-related items found during the car search: [41].

The Court also found the Magistrate to have adopted a harsh and critical (苛刻) approach when considering the defence case: [46]. On a rehearing, the Court found that the defence case was largely consistent and the prosecution had no evidence to rebut the defence case: [47]-[49]. In light of the flaw within the prosecution’s case and the intact defence case which was not refuted by the prosecution, the court found there to be a lurking doubt: [50]. The Court therefore quashed the conviction and awarded 50% of the costs of the appeal to the Appellant.

Simon So appeared with Herman Ho for the Appellant in the appeal. The full judgment was published on https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=170507&currpage=T. They were also trial counsel in the 4-day trial before the Magistrate.