刑事檢控科各律師/高級律政 - Department of Justice

19
Section 148A of the Ordinance provided:
1. Notwithstanding section 26 of the Magistrates
Ordinance, Chapter 227 an information or complaint
relating to an offence under this Ordinance may be
tried if it is laid or made, as the case may be, at any
time within three years after commission of the offence
or within twelve months after the first discovery
thereof by the prosecutor, whichever expires first.
2. This section should not apply in relation to an
offence committed before the commencement of the
Securities (Amendment) Ordinance 1991(6 of 1991).
The chronology of events which gave rise to this prosecution
revealed that the matter had been originally brought to the attention of
the SFC by a letter of complaint dated 15 June 1997 from a Ms Wong.
Annie Kwong, an SFC investigator, gave evidence that she had
commenced investigation on 22 October 1997 when she received a
number of documents from the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong
(‘SEHK’), including the original letter of complaint. These documents
had been delivered by hand to the SFC under cover of a letter dated
22 October 1997 from the Assistant Director of Regulation of the
SEHK to the Senior Director of Enforcement. Ms Molly Li and the
Appellant were interviewed and denied the existence of any contract of
employment between them, and also the payment of any remuneration.
On 2 July 1998, the SFC issued a notice to banks to obtain bank
documents of Molly Li and the Appellant. On 13 July 1998, the
Standard Chartered Bank and the Bank of China supplied bank
statements of Molly Li and the Appellant which showed that three
cheques issued from the Appellant’s account had been deposited into
the account of Molly Li.
The SFC contended that until they had received the bank
documents in July 1998, there had been no discovery of the fact of
payment to Molly Li by Quest, a material fact which had to be proved.
Held :
(1) It was without doubt that where a time limit was imposed for the
commencement of proceedings or for the laying of an information, it
was for the prosecution to prove, if necessary, that the prosecution had
been brought or the information laid within the time limit. However, it
was also clear that where the facts of the alleged commission of offence
emerged over a period of time, it might be difficult to determine the
exact point at which the period within which prosecution must be