The defendant is an associate professor at the Faculty of Law of the University of Hong Kong. She was charged with deceiving the University about her housing situation in order to obtain housing benefits in a rental unit in Kowloon Tong under the Personal Tenancy Allowance (PTA). The prosecution claimed that there was a “Live-in Requirement” for the DA, which required an applicant for the DA to use the rented property as his/her principal residence (“principal residence”). The prosecution therefore alleged that the defendant’s statement on the DA application form that she agreed to abide by the “Live-in Requirement” was “false” because she was living primarily in her parents’ home during the period of the offence.
The core issues in this case were therefore: (i) whether the “Occupancy Rules” were part of the SHRA Rules and Regulations; (ii) what were the “Occupancy Rules”; (iii) whether the Kowloon Tong flat was the defendant’s main residence; and (iv) whether she had the intent to commit fraud.
The defendant chose not to testify at the trial.
After reviewing documents such as the SHRA application form and the staff handbook, Deputy Judge Cheung Chi-wai considered that even if the “Accommodation Rules” were part of the rules and regulations applicable to the SHRA, the prosecution’s interpretation of the “Accommodation Rules” was not tenable. He also considered that the defence’s position was more acceptable, namely that the rules and regulations of the SHRA only required the defendant to use the rented property for accommodation purposes (there was no requirement that the property must be his main residence).
The Court further agreed with the defence’s submission that in any event, the evidence adduced by the prosecution was insufficient to support an irrebuttable inference that the defendant did not occupy the Kowloon Tong flat as his principal residence at the material time.
The court also considered the defence’s argument to be credible, namely that she had spent more time at her parents’ home during the relevant period to take care of her sick father and disabled aunt, and therefore had no intention to defraud.
In view of this, the court ruled that the defendant was not guilty of fraud.
Parkside’s Osmond Lam acted for the Defendant in this case.
