The defendant was charged with two charges of money laundering of HK$10,308,458 and HK$661,000 respectively.
After a 7-day trial, the Court (DDCJ May Chung) accepted the Defence’s submissions that the defendant and Mr. Waheed Abdul were honest witnesses (§30) and found that a reasonable person would have the same beliefs and views as the defendant in the circumstances – that the sums are for legitimate purposes and not tainted (§34).
Two matters are of interest.
First, the Court noted that that limited information was provided by the police on the transactions during interviews under caution. However, the defendant himself went to the ATM to punch in the account number of the counterparty for each transaction and was able to find out the partial names of most of these parties. From this additional counterparty information, the defendant was able to explain the purpose of or reason for a large number of the transactions, which he had been unable to without the information during the interviews (§16).
Second, the Court accepted the Defence’s submissions that the court should take into account the passage of time between the offence date and trial, and the effect of such on the memories of defence witnesses (footnote 9 to §30). The Defence’s submissions was made relying on R v Brian M [2000] 1 Crim App R 49 and s.29 of the “Specimen Directions in Jury Trials”.
On 17 November 2025, the Court granted costs to the Defence with a certificate for two counsel, being a Senior Counsel and a junior counsel.
The Court did not agree with the Prosecution’s argument that the defendant’s conduct had brought suspicion upon himself.
First, the Court considered HKSAR v Rahman MD Sheikh Mojibur [2020] HKCA 53 §25 that “a defendant is perfectly entitled not to answer questions or disclose his defence to the investigating authorities. That is his right. But if he chooses to exercise it, it does not mean that he cannot be deprived of costs if he had a perfectly good defence but chose not to give the slightest hint as to its existence”. The Court held that the defendant did disclose information under caution in the VRI, as consistent with his evidence in the box. Subsequently, the defendant had obtained more information by punching in account numbers in the ATM, but the Court did not agree that the defendant’s answers at the VRI were contradictory or inadequate or that the defendant should have reverted to the police with more information.
Second, the Court further held, applying HKSAR v Balasinghe Pedige Sriyanthi (03/06/2004, HCMA 413/2004) §5, that a person under investigation cannot be said to have brought suspicion upon herself just because she did not, when questioned by the police, raise an argument later on used by her advocate with a view to casting a reasonable doubt on the prosecution’s case.
Third, the Court held, applying 律政司司長 訴 張鎮泰及另一人 [2025] 5 HKC 234, [2025] HKCA 40 §22, that the Prosecution should not seek to raise the standard of the defendant’s disclosure at the investigation stage to perfection and to require the defendant acquitted after trial to have cooperated with the relevant authorities to their satisfaction at the investigation stage before he could be awarded costs.
The Court considered that it was reasonable for the defendant to have engaged two counsel. The Court considered Archbold Hong Kong 2025 §6-45, R v Dudley Magistrates’ Court, ex p Power City Stores Limited (1990) 154 JP 654, and HKSAR v Tsang Sio Pou & Anor [2020] 4 HKLRD 729. The Court held that (i) the charges faced by the defendant were very serious, (ii) if he were convicted he would have faced a substantial period of imprisonment and his reputation as a leader in his community and businessman would be severely tarnished, (iii) the documents were voluminous and with a pagination going up to over 6000.
Wayne Walsh SC leading Fergus Tam, instructed by Mohnani & Associates, acted for the defendant.
For Wayne’s full profile, see here.
For Fergus’ full profile, see here.
The reasons for verdict of DDCJ May Chung [2025] HKDC 1691 can be found here.
The ruling on costs of DDCJ May Chung [2025] HKDC 1970 can be found here.
