HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Criminal Appeal2001

HKSAR v. WONG TIN YUEN

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
5304-EN-2002-03-21

HKSAR v. WONG TIN YUEN

HTML content

CACC000535/2001

CACC 535/2001

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 535 OF 2001

(ON APPEAL FROM DCCC 864 OF 2001)

______________

BETWEEN
HKSARRespondent
AND
WONG TIN-YUENApplicant

______________

Coram: Hon Mayo VP in Court

Date of Hearing: 21 March 2002

Date of Judgment: 21 March 2002

_____________

J U D G M E N T

_____________

 

1. These offences were very serious offences. They involved a major scam. Banks have lost approximately $750,000.00 and there was a potential for much greater losses. The sentences imposed were if anything on the light side. There is no merit in this application and it is dismissed.

2. The other matter which I have to do is to advise the applicant that at the moment he was just applying for leave. He can, even though leave has been refused, still proceed with an application to the Court of Appeal sitting with three judges. I need to warn the applicant that if he does so and if the Court of Appeal is of the view that the application is not meritorious, it is likely that they would make an order that part of the sentence which the applicant served would not count towards the sentence altogether.

(Simon Mayo)
Vice-President

Representation:

Ms Wong Sze-lai, Lily, SGC, of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.

Applicant in person.