已故甘草演員兼書法家區樹湛，疑遭其女徒弟任職大律師的弟弟 (黃桂生大律師) 利用假遺囑承辦遺產，並提走存款。 黃桂生大律師否認行使假遺囑，案件昨開審，他辯稱當日見證區簽署遺囑，但事後真遺囑遭人調包，指假遺囑上區及他的簽名均遭人偽冒。
大律師黃桂生（51歲）被控使用假文書及副本、經宣誓後作出虛假陳述及盜竊等共9項罪名。控方在開案陳詞指出，已故電視台演員區樹湛（74歲）沒有親屬，他是一名設計師兼書法老師，自80年代起授徒，被告姊姊黃彩竹是其中一名徒弟。
申逆權管有死者單位
案件主要涉及區位於西區西源里的單位，以及他的戶口存款。區曾與被告姊姊及另一名女徒弟一同居住於該單位，但97年他以100萬元售予同在電視台工作而認識的「契仔」張偉明，但契仔仍讓區住在該處。除此之外，契仔每月會給區5,000元作生活費，存入二人在渣打銀行開立的聯名戶口。雖然契仔之後定居愛爾蘭，但繼續以自動轉賬過數給區。
至2009年7月10日，區去世。被告就在區死後一個月，向高院申請逆權管有區的住所，並向遺產承辦處提交聲稱是區於2009年6月16日訂立的遺囑，申請授予遺囑認證及進行宣誓，稱自己是遺囑執行人，其姊則是遺產受益人，遺囑上有一名姓葉的見證人及被告的簽名。一個月後，被告以該遺囑成功向警方領取區的聯名戶口存摺，並在2010年1至3月向渣打銀行提交6張聲稱是區預先簽署的轉賬單，在區的聯名戶口轉賬15,400元至自己戶口，然後提走款項。
「見證人」稱從沒簽署
警方去年9月19日到被告寓所搜查，但被告拒絕開門，警方於是破門入屋。警誡下被告聲稱訂立遺囑時，尚有一名地產公司職員華叔作見證。被告又指是區指示他，要在區死後繼續從聯名戶口以小額提款，藉以騙契仔區仍在生，讓契仔繼續存錢。
控方指化驗證實遺囑及6張銀行轉賬單上區的簽署均是偽冒，葉則稱從沒見證遺囑簽署，地產
公司東主指沒職員叫「華叔」，而且遺囑簽署當日公司尚未開始經營。
案件編號：DCCC158/13
(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131001/18445158)
_____________________________________________________
South China Morning Post, Saturday, 22 September, 2012
Barrister Raymond K S Wong (黃桂生大律師) allegedly used a forged will to claim the estate of a late Cantonese film actor and stole funds from his bank account, Eastern Court heard yesterday.
Raymond Wong Kwai-sang, 45, was charged with using a false instrument, using a copy of a false instrument and theft. He did not enter any pleas.
Counsel Raymond K S Wong, a barrister since 1996, is accused of presenting a forged will of Au Shu-cham at the Probate Registry on October 13, 2009. He also allegedly showed a copy of the will at Western District police station on November 25 that year to induce a constable into accepting it as genuine.
Au was an actor who took part in Cantonese films between the 1970s and 1980s. It is believed he died in 2009, aged 75.
The prosecution said Wong knew or believed that the documents were bogus.
Lawyer Raymond K S Wong also allegedly stole HK$15,400 from a Standard Chartered Bank account jointly owned by Au and Cheung Wai-ming between January and March 2010, court papers show. Cheung was understood to be Au's sworn son.
Magistrate Bina Chainrai adjourned the case to November 11 for further police inquiries.
The court heard that police seized a computer from Wong's flat in Sheung Shui and found specimens of Au's signature from his chambers in Central. The prosecution will engage handwriting experts to examine the signatures.
Barrister Raymond Wong was released on HK$50,000 bail. He was ordered to surrender his travel documents and not to leave the city. He must report to Sha Tin police station twice a week.
According to the website of the Bar Association, Counsel Raymond Wong became a barrister in Hong Kong and Britain in 1996. He handles both civil and criminal cases, specialising in company and commercial law.
A conviction for using a false instrument warrants up to 14 years in jail, while the maximum term for theft is 10 years.
It is understood that Wong's sister had lived with Au. She had been Au's calligraphy student since the 1980s.
(Source: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1042588/hong-kong-barrister-accused-using-bogus-will-claim-late-actors-estate)
2013年9月30日 星期一
劉世祿大律師襲擊罪成 (Barrister Lau Sai Luk Convicted of Assault)
Counsel S K Lau (Lau Sai Luk) Convicted of Assault - 大狀劉世祿襲擊罪成
劉世祿大律師在超級市場用手推車撞傷超巿男經理左腳，經審訊後被裁定普通襲擊罪成。案件原定昨日判刑，但他不僅遲到一個小時才現身法院，更透過代表律師要求獲輕判無條件釋放。裁判官聽罷十分不滿地說：「我係你大律師都覺得尷尬，我寧願畀返錢你，你自己求情！」最後因可憐他，准他將案押後以準備求情信。
被告劉世祿 (Lawyer S K Lau, Lau Sai Luk)（57歲）被指曾多次向尖沙嘴K11商場內的MARKET PLACE超級市場作出投訴，而投訴由姓黃經理處理。
去年12月4日，黃在店內遭被告用手推車步步進逼，令他背貼貨架，手推車終撞向他左腿。黃舉起雙手問被告：「我有乜嘢可以幫到你？」被告回答：「我要避你，所以撞你。」被告再用手推車撞向黃。警方後來接報到場調查，黃送院證實左腿紅腫受傷。
遲到一小時始現身法院
被告早前在九龍城裁判法院不承認控罪，他沒聘用律師而選擇自行辯護，直至昨日接受判刑才委託大律師陸偉雄代表出庭。
陸就被告遲到解釋，指被告因有腰傷及腳傷，擔心車內人多擠逼觸及傷患，花時間等一部乘客較少的車代步。又指被告身為大律師，判刑越輕對稍後召開的紀律聆訊越有利，故懇求裁判官判處有條件釋放，甚至無條件釋放。
裁判官馬保華表示不適宜判被告感化及社會服務令。假如被告認罪，可能判處有條件釋放，惟被告經審訊後定罪，現要求判處無條件釋放，辯方的要求猶如想魚與熊掌兼得，法庭是不能接受。
裁判官續稱被告曾以腳痛等理由，至少五次押後聆訊，昨日再透過代表大律師提出要求輕判，裁判官坦言：「我可憐你同代表你嘅大律師，先畀你押後單案」，排期10月21日再開庭，讓辯方準備求情信呈堂，並准被告保釋。
案件編號：KCCC1270/13
(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131001/18445162)
劉世祿大律師在超級市場用手推車撞傷超巿男經理左腳，經審訊後被裁定普通襲擊罪成。案件原定昨日判刑，但他不僅遲到一個小時才現身法院，更透過代表律師要求獲輕判無條件釋放。裁判官聽罷十分不滿地說：「我係你大律師都覺得尷尬，我寧願畀返錢你，你自己求情！」最後因可憐他，准他將案押後以準備求情信。
被告劉世祿 (Lawyer S K Lau, Lau Sai Luk)（57歲）被指曾多次向尖沙嘴K11商場內的MARKET PLACE超級市場作出投訴，而投訴由姓黃經理處理。
去年12月4日，黃在店內遭被告用手推車步步進逼，令他背貼貨架，手推車終撞向他左腿。黃舉起雙手問被告：「我有乜嘢可以幫到你？」被告回答：「我要避你，所以撞你。」被告再用手推車撞向黃。警方後來接報到場調查，黃送院證實左腿紅腫受傷。
遲到一小時始現身法院
被告早前在九龍城裁判法院不承認控罪，他沒聘用律師而選擇自行辯護，直至昨日接受判刑才委託大律師陸偉雄代表出庭。
陸就被告遲到解釋，指被告因有腰傷及腳傷，擔心車內人多擠逼觸及傷患，花時間等一部乘客較少的車代步。又指被告身為大律師，判刑越輕對稍後召開的紀律聆訊越有利，故懇求裁判官判處有條件釋放，甚至無條件釋放。
裁判官馬保華表示不適宜判被告感化及社會服務令。假如被告認罪，可能判處有條件釋放，惟被告經審訊後定罪，現要求判處無條件釋放，辯方的要求猶如想魚與熊掌兼得，法庭是不能接受。
裁判官續稱被告曾以腳痛等理由，至少五次押後聆訊，昨日再透過代表大律師提出要求輕判，裁判官坦言：「我可憐你同代表你嘅大律師，先畀你押後單案」，排期10月21日再開庭，讓辯方準備求情信呈堂，並准被告保釋。
案件編號：KCCC1270/13
(Source: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20131001/18445162)
任懿君法官 (Yam J) 被 Sears J 猛烈批評 (Heavily Criticized) - The Degree of Unfairness was Substantial
Dato Tan Leong Min v The Insider Dealing Tribunal [1998] HKCFI 29; [1998] 1 HKLRD 630; HCAL49/1997 (1 April 1998): -
7. In these two applications, serious and numerous allegations have been made against the Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr Justice Yam, and counsel for the enquiry, Mr Peter Davies. Their conduct, it is said, has broken elementary rules of fairness not only to those implicated but also to the public. Large portions of the inquiry have been held in secret. In other words, nobody knew about them and they were never disclosed. Their existence has only been known for a few months. It is submitted that the Chairman has disregarded the important principle of open justice and has provided a result so flawed that it should be quashed...
9. My general conclusions are as follows...
... a reading of the minutes demonstrates to my mind that Mr Peter Davies was being very conservative with the truth...
7. In these two applications, serious and numerous allegations have been made against the Chairman of the Tribunal, Mr Justice Yam, and counsel for the enquiry, Mr Peter Davies. Their conduct, it is said, has broken elementary rules of fairness not only to those implicated but also to the public. Large portions of the inquiry have been held in secret. In other words, nobody knew about them and they were never disclosed. Their existence has only been known for a few months. It is submitted that the Chairman has disregarded the important principle of open justice and has provided a result so flawed that it should be quashed...
9. My general conclusions are as follows...
... From the conclusion of the public hearings in August 1996, the Tribunal received evidence which was never disclosed to the parties and he secretly evaluated the evidence with counsel until the end of the year.
... When the Tribunal began to write the report, it secretly received comments from counsel and evidence from some parties.
... The Tribunal in effect conducted an inquiry which breached the basic rules of fairness and openness and although the Chairman was warned about his unusual procedures, he nevertheless continued with them.The procedural irregularities are so numerous that I do not consider it necessary to identify them all. The degree of unfairness was substantial. The worse aspect to this sorry saga was that what should have been a public inquiry became instead a private and secret hearing between the Tribunal and its counsel...
... a reading of the minutes demonstrates to my mind that Mr Peter Davies was being very conservative with the truth...
(R.A.W. Sears)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
(Source: http://www.hklii.hk/cgi-bin/sinodisp/eng/hk/cases/hkcfi/1998/29.html?stem=&synonyms=&query=Dato%20Tan%20Leong%20Min)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court
2013年9月25日 星期三
Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)
Judge Doreen Le Pichon “Plainly Wrong” (郭美超法官明顯地是錯的)
Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html
http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/
Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU
Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
Nazareth VP: -
The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.
(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal
Source: http://joycekwan20130602.blogspot.hk/2013/08/judge-doreen-le-pichon-plainly-wrong.html
http://jointarmy20130201.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/le-pichon-plainly-wrong/
Judge Doreen Le Pichon said to be “plainly wrong” in BORN CHIEF CO t/a BEIJING RESTAURANT v. TSAI, GEORGE AND ANOTHER; Reported in: [1996] 2 HKLRD 188
http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/search/search_result_detail_frame.jsp?DIS=10792&QS=%28born%2Bchief%29&TP=JU
Coram: Nazareth, V.-P., Liu and Ching, JJ.A. in Court
Date of Hearing: 12 March 1996
Date of Judgment: 10 April 1996
———————-
J U D G M E N T
———————–
Nazareth VP: -
The judge (Doreen Le Pichon) was plainly wrong in directing an inquiry to be made by a Master as to damages, and that order cannot be permitted to stand.
(G P Nazareth) (B Liu) (Charles Ching)
Vice President Justice of Appeal Justice of Appeal
黃志偉大律師被終審庭狠批「無能」- CFA Said Barrister Philip Wong (Wong Chi Wai) Was Incompetent
CFA Said Barrister Philip Wong (Wong Chi Wai) Was Incompetent - 黃志偉大律師被終審庭狠批「無能」
See: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=89271&currpage=T
HKSAR v Wong Chi Wai (FACC No. 10 of 2012, September 23, 2013)
123. Stock VP pointed out that:
See: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=89271&currpage=T
HKSAR v Wong Chi Wai (FACC No. 10 of 2012, September 23, 2013)
121. There can be no doubt that Barrister Philip Wong's level of competence as a lawyer was low. In particular, he had a poor grasp of LPP as a legal doctrine.[127] In cross-examination, Mr Wong stated that he could see no difference between confidentiality and LPP and thought that a court could override them both:
122. Mr Clive Grossman SC, called as a character witness for Mr Wong described him as “a man of integrity who worked hard for his client, but ... not of the highest intellect.”[129] Another character witness, Mr Philip Dykes SC said he was “a man of integrity whose style was enthusiastic and combative” adding that “he had spoken to [Mr Wong] on occasion and advised [him] to moderate [his] approach”.[130]“Q: No, this is confidentiality not LPP?A: Well I see no difference....Q: No, LPP is different, isn’t it, because LPP the court cannot order that the matters be disclosed if they are coved by privilege, confidentiality the court can, that’s the difference, isn’t it?A: Well I don’t think so, I don’t think so.”....Q: .... there are two things there, confidentiality and privilege, they’re different?A: Yes, yes different but the effect of a court order is the same. The court, the order can override the privilege as well as the confidentiality, that’s my understanding.”[128]
124. His Lordship continued:“One has in a case such as this to take the greatest care to distinguish between misguided professional enthusiasm or even incompetence, on the one hand and, on the other, dishonesty.”[131]
“...although it is clear enough that Wong wished, if possible, to avoid a contested argument in court on the issue of privilege, and although I have not had the advantage, as did the trial judge of hearing the evidence, I still retain some doubt if the suggestion be that Wong had no belief at all in the point. That doubt arises from the evidence of Wong’s aggressive tenacity on behalf of his clients and of the evidence which suggests that he is a facts advocate, not much at ease with arguments of law.”[132]
125. The opinion of Mr Dykes SC that Mr Wong was “a competent lawyer, well able to look up the law”[133] does not appear to be borne out by the evidence. Mr Wong does not appear to have done more than look at Blackstone and, when asked by the Judge to produce authority overnight, only managed to re-cycle the case which had been mentioned, with reservations, by Mr Ngai in an earlier note.
126. The picture that emerges is therefore of a barrister of low competence with a poor understanding of the relevant concepts; doing no effective research; “thrilled” to have discovered the bill of costs, which was regarded as a justification for pursuing the LPP argument; coupled with an aggressive tenacity reflected in the three letters sent to Ms Mak – an unedifying vision, but distinctly more plausible, in my view, than the prosecution’s theory of a barrister well aware of the law but cynically using LPP as a pretext for what in truth was what the Judge had called “a threat simpliciter” aimed at deflecting Ms Mak from her duty.
2013年9月16日 星期一
Barrister and Senior Counsel Daniel Fung SC (馮華健資深大律師) Found Guilty of Professional Misconduct
Barrister Daniel Fung SC (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel, was found guilty of professional misconduct on February 1 by the tribunal, chaired by Peter Ng Kar-fai SC. On June 2, he was censured and ordered to pay a penalty of HK$300,000.
He was found guilty of failing to inform the Court of Appeal in 2005 about clauses of a legislative provision that were unfavourable to his client, Hong Kong Island Development, in a tenancy lawsuit. The firm is a unit of New World Development Group. According to a note on the tribunal's judgment, Fung's failure to draw the court's attention to the point was contrary to the Bar's Code of Conduct. The full judgment has not been made public and the Bar Association says it is not its practice to do so.
(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/719003/daniel-fung-panel-took-three-years-form)
We wish to clarify the timing with the following chronology.
The report concerned disciplinary proceedings against Barrister Daniel Fung Wah Kin (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel, which arose from a Court of Appeal hearing in 2005.
Fung received a letter from the Bar Association dated October 27, 2006, informing him the Bar Council had decided the matter be inquired into by a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal, and that it would be submitted to the tribunal convenor.
On May 2, 2007, Tong was requested by the Bar Association to set up the tribunal. He sent Fung a notice dated June 5, 2007, informing him that a tribunal had been constituted, providing names of panel members including Peter Ng Kar-fai SC, who sat as its chairman.
On September 12, 2007, a directions hearing was held before the tribunal and the substantive hearing began on April 24, 2008.
Fung was found guilty of professional misconduct by the tribunal on February 1, this year. He was censured and ordered to pay a penalty of HK$300,000 on June 2.
(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/719306/corrections-clarifications)
He was found guilty of failing to inform the Court of Appeal in 2005 about clauses of a legislative provision that were unfavourable to his client, Hong Kong Island Development, in a tenancy lawsuit. The firm is a unit of New World Development Group. According to a note on the tribunal's judgment, Fung's failure to draw the court's attention to the point was contrary to the Bar's Code of Conduct. The full judgment has not been made public and the Bar Association says it is not its practice to do so.
(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/719003/daniel-fung-panel-took-three-years-form)
We wish to clarify the timing with the following chronology.
The report concerned disciplinary proceedings against Barrister Daniel Fung Wah Kin (馮華健資深大律師), a Senior Counsel, which arose from a Court of Appeal hearing in 2005.
Fung received a letter from the Bar Association dated October 27, 2006, informing him the Bar Council had decided the matter be inquired into by a Barristers Disciplinary Tribunal, and that it would be submitted to the tribunal convenor.
On May 2, 2007, Tong was requested by the Bar Association to set up the tribunal. He sent Fung a notice dated June 5, 2007, informing him that a tribunal had been constituted, providing names of panel members including Peter Ng Kar-fai SC, who sat as its chairman.
On September 12, 2007, a directions hearing was held before the tribunal and the substantive hearing began on April 24, 2008.
Fung was found guilty of professional misconduct by the tribunal on February 1, this year. He was censured and ordered to pay a penalty of HK$300,000 on June 2.
(Source: http://www.scmp.com/article/719306/corrections-clarifications)
Barrister Stanley Ma (馬浩輝大律師) Suspended For 30 Months For Having Stolen a Woman's Bra
Counsel Stanley Ma also known as Barrister
Stanley H F Ma or Barrister Ma Ho Fai (馬浩輝大律師) Suspended For 30 Months For Having Stolen a Woman's Bra (因為偷女人胸圍停牌30個月).
(Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=16084089&extra=page%3D9)
.jpg)
.jpg)
(Source: http://www.uwants.com/viewthread.php?tid=16084089&extra=page%3D9)
.jpg)
.jpg)
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)