Article

Note: For a period of over 2 ½ years, Defendant, Ho Siu Hoi, participated in a scheme to defraud Hang Seng Bank Limited in connection with the issuance of 258 letters of credit. The funds were used by Au Kiang International Limited and Dero Enterprises Limited, of which Defendant, his father, and a brother were owners, to raise money for property speculation.

The scheme involved bank employees who were rewarded for granting or increasing extensive credit facilities secured by company properties with "substantial bribes." LCs were issued on behalf of the two companies for the benefit of four other companies. Because there was no underlying transaction, false documents were presented and the funds were recycled to the applicant company less a small commission, and the funds were used to buy property and repay prior LCs.

Defendant signed applications, false trust receipts, and false cargo receipts.

When an employee of an applicant company disclosed the fraud and informed the bank that the outstanding amounts could not be repaid, the bank stopped extending credit and created a fixed loan that was unpaid. The properties of the two companies also lost value, resulting in further losses.

At a trial before the Court of First Instance, Nguyen, J., Defendant was convicted of seven counts of conspiracy to defraud, and sentenced to nine years imprisonment. The principal issue at the trial was Defendant's knowledge of the fraudulent nature of the transactions to which he lent his name.

Defendant sought leave to appeal against his conviction on the grounds that the trial judge had misinstructed the jury about the nature of testimony from immunized witnesses, the prosecution had improperly commented on Defendant's failure to introduce evidence, and the trial judge had misinstructed the jury on considering the charges separately. The High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of Appeal, Stuart-Moore, Ag CJHC, dismissed Defendant's application, stating that it failed on all three grounds. The appellate court ruled that both instructions given by the trial judge were proper and standard, and that the trial judge furthermore corrected the error committed by the prosecution in commenting on Defendant's failure to provide evidence.

[JEB/ees]

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.