Persons under SFC's investigation are often found to have provided false or misleading information to SFC, then they would be subject to a heavy penalty. However, last week Eastern Magistracy acquitted Mr Hui Ngai Hon Edward, Mr Ho Tung Wan (formerly known as Ho Wai Chun) and Mr Lam Yiu Lun of three charges of misleading the SFC. They were alleged to have misled the SFC on a critical issue as to whether they knew each other during an SFC investigation into a market manipulation case.
In interviews with SFC, Hui and Lam said they did not recognise Ho's name, and Ho said he did not recognise Lam's name. On the other hand, SFC obtained an evidence from third parties including a statement from a travel agent, who said that Hui, Ho and Lam took holidays together. However, the magistrate ruled that there was insufficient evidence to prove that they had misled the SFC. This was based on the view that SFC did not prove that the defendants knew one another's full Chinese names when they were shown to them by SFC in the interview.
The magistrate's ruling is not unreasonable. You may "know" somebody simply by being able to recognize his appearance. You may not know his full Chinese names if usually you call only his English name. Perhaps in future SFC has to provide a photo to perform this "knowing" test!
This is an interesting case yet I have reservation on the court's ruling.
ReplyDeleteA person is "known" even his Chinese name is unknown. (A person is not necessary known if his Chinese name is known.) Knowing a person's Chinese name is just one of the determining factors. One has to rely on the circumstances of each case.