This was a final appeal by Mr Lui against his conviction and sentence.
Mr Lui was convicted of conspiracy to accept advantages contrary to common law and the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. A jury had found that, while an agent of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and British American Tobacco Company (HK) Limited, Mr Lui had accepted bribes in the order of $23 million for ensuring the supply of cigarettes to certain companies. He was subsequently sentenced to 3 years and 8 months imprisonment, and ordered to pay $500,000 in fines, $10 million in restitution and prosecution costs of $11 million.
In this decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Lui's appeals against both conviction and sentence, and increased the sum that Mr Lui was required to pay by way of restitution.
HKSAR v. Lui Kin Hong
Hong Kong (SAR)
Apr 6, 2001
High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of Appeal
Courts may sanction or reprimand parties for especially egregious behavior during court proceedings.
Type of Tobacco Product
None
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
"We say that the sentence was manifestly inadequate because this was a case in which advantages totalling over $30 million were accepted over a three-year period by a mature and educated man, who occupied a senior position in a major industry, who showed no remorse (even after conviction, when he continued to maintain his innocence), and in respect of whom there was simply no mitigation. He had fled the jurisdiction, pleaded not guilty, and had offered to pay back not one cent of the cash bribes he had received. The judge took a starting point of five years’ imprisonment. In our judgment that was clearly too low. A starting point of not less than six years was called for. He deducted six months for his previous good character. Given the length and scale of the offence, and his own evidence that he had been involved for years in smuggling cigarettes, that might be viewed as a generous deduction. The judge then reduced the term of imprisonment by a further 10 months to give some credit to the Applicant for the fact that he had spent 17 months in custody in the USA pending extradition. In our judgment that was too generous and, but for one matter, the Applicant deserved no reduction at all for that factor. He fled from Hong Kong when he knew full well that an investigation was underway. He fought the extradition largely on the basis that he could not obtain a fair trial in Hong Kong, and whilst he is not to be penalised for adopting that fashionable line, neither should he be permitted to pray in aid the period of custody which he thereby brought upon himself. Nor is there shown any conduct on the part of the prosecuting authorities, or by the authorities of the USA which unnecessarily prolonged his detention. The one factor that might properly be taken into account is that probable cause for extradition was not established in relation to one of the charges. In the circumstances we have described, we could not properly say that the Applicant should, notwithstanding the dashed hopes factor, be sentenced differently for the offence, by a reduction of sentence. A reduction would result in a sentence which, even taking that factor into account, would be a travesty."
Limitations regarding the use of quotes The quotes provided here reflect statements from a specific decision. Accordingly, the International Legal Consortium (ILC) cannot guarantee that an appellate court has not reversed a lower court decision which may influence the applicability or influence of a given quote. All quotes have been selected based on the subjective evaluations undertaken by the ILC meaning that quotes provided here may not accurately or comprehensively represent a given court’s opinion or conclusion, as such quotes may have originally appeared alongside other negative opinions or accompanying facts. Further, some quotes are derived from unofficial English translations, which may alter their original meaning. We emphasize the need to review the original decision and related decisions before authoritatively relying on quotes. Using quotes provided here should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to be a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter in any jurisdiction. Please see the full limitations at https://www.tobaccocontrollaws.org/about.
This was a final appeal by Mr Lui against his conviction and sentence.
Mr Lui was convicted of conspiracy to accept advantages contrary to common law and the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance. A jury had found that, while an agent of Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation and British American Tobacco Company (HK) Limited, Mr Lui had accepted bribes in the order of $23 million for ensuring the supply of cigarettes to certain companies. He was subsequently sentenced to 3 years and 8 months imprisonment, and ordered to pay $500,000 in fines, $10 million in restitution and prosecution costs of $11 million.
In this decision, the Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Lui's appeals against both conviction and sentence, and increased the sum that Mr Lui was required to pay by way of restitution.