HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal1979

GLOBE HOUSEWARE IMPORT LTD v. THE QUEEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR10/1992THE QUEEN v. WONG MOK DIN
  • CAAR11/1986THE QUEEN v. CHUNG WAI-YIU
  • CAAR12/1986THE QUEEN v. HSU SAI-MAN AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR15/1986THE QUEEN v. WU KAM MING AND OTHERS
  • CAAR15/1987THE QUEEN v. LEUNG WING FAI
  • CAAR16/1987THE QUEEN v. PANG CHEUNG KIM
  • CAAR19/1986THE QUEEN v. CHAN CHI MAN
  • CAAR22/1986THE QUEEN v. WONG TAK-CHI
  • CAAR23/1986THE QUEEN v. MA LAI WU AND OTHERS
  • CAAR4/1986THE QUEEN v. LY XUONG THANH
  • CAAR5/1986THE QUEEN v. YEUNG KAM-WAH (D1) AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR8/1986THE QUEEN v. ALBERT STANLEY MALIA
  • CAAR9/1986THE QUEEN v. CHU TAI WAI AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR9/1989THE QUEEN v. CHAN KOON KWOK ARTHUR
  • CACC1000/1976LAI FAT v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC1000/1983THE QUEEN v. LEE HEI KEUNG
  • CACC1001/1979LAW WAI-MING AND ANOTHER v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1972LIU KAM-MAN v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1973LO WAI KEUNG v. THE QUEEN
  • CACC100/1977TAM YUK-MUI (F) v. THE QUEEN
2703-EN-1979-04-17

GLOBE HOUSEWARE IMPORT LTD v. THE QUEEN

HTML content

CACC000291/1979

IN THE SUPREME COURTCriminal Appeal
1979 No. 291

BETWEEN:
Globe Houseware Import Ltd.Appellant

AND

THE QUEENRespondent

Coram: Briggs, C.J.

Date of Judgment: 17 April 1979

 

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

 

1. The appellant company appeared in the person of Madam WAN Chi-fong, who is one of the proprietors of the appellant company. The appellant pleaded guilty to three counts of offering an advantage contrary to section 9(2)(a) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. The company was fined $20,000 in all, that is to say, for the first and third offences $5,000 each, and for the second offence $10,000, making as I say a total of $20,000.

2. The appellant is a wholesale company selling glassware and home appliances and was supplying such goods to Hong Kong Matsuzakaya Department Store since that store opened in 1975. One LAM Kin-sang was employed by that firm and he used to order goods from the appellant. On the three occasions with which we are here concerned, the company paid commissions to Mr. LAM Kin-sang at a figure of about 6% of the total sales. The sums involved in these three counts were about $3,000 in toto.

3. Counsel drew the court's attention to the amount of fines that had been imposed by the magistrates courts in other cases of a similar nature and there is no doubt that the sums imposed in this case were very high. I was told that the capital of the company is $20,000 but it is uncertain whether it is all paid up. I don't think that fact was brought to the attention of the magistrate who tried this case and I don't think he intended to pass a fine which might have the effect of crippling the company's business.

4. In the event, I allowed the appeal to the extent that each of the fines be reduced by 50% making a total of $10,000.

 

 

( Geoffrey Briggs )
Chief Justice.

 

Representation:

Madam WAN Chi- fong for appellant

Duncan for crown