Extract from

HKSAR (香港特別行政區) v Rahman & Ors (2 September 2008)

Click here to read the main article on the case.

On Angela Gong, the main prosecution witness

"The length of time Gong spent in the witness box and the depth of her examination cross-examination gave me a very long period over which to observe and assess her. Her intelligence is manifest. She generally gave sharp, focused answers, addressing the questions, where the questions could be properly understood through translation, rather than drifting into other issues. She was perceptive in her appreciation of the topic under examination and articulate in her response. She was spontaneous, relevant and prompt in her answers; she was coherent and rational and moderate."

"Fluency from a well rehearsed liar can add verisimilitude to what is said."

"Courts should always cautious about placing much emphasis on the demeanour of witnesses, it is dangerous territory and apt to mislead; but in so far as it can properly be applied in this case it was in Gong's favour on the material issues. She was open and frank, rational and compelling. Part of the strength of her evidence lay in its breadth and depth and the intricate way that the various parts related to the whole: that it was too massive an edifice to be the result of invention. She had a tremendous grip upon her evidence that exhibited itself in an ability to move seamlessly through the various phases of events and enter it at depth whenever asked to do so."

On Chau Ching Ngai

"He wanted to make out that he was important and wealthy. He liked others to know what he was engaged in, to show he was financially resourceful...The purpose of the signing ceremony in Shanghai (which featured a good deal in the evidence in the trial) was because Chau wanted others to know about the Jing An project to which it related. (para. 346)"

"It was a description consistent with the fears of D6 and others regarding the Shanghai trip, where advance warnings were delivered to Chau as to what he could and could not say, warnings which were ignored by him and which the evidence showed required urgent remedies afterwards to plug the holes he had recklessly made. It is evident that the press was full of rumours about Chau Ching Ngai, often fuelled by his remarks. He was manifestly someone who like to brag and the professionals, who knew the dangers inherent in that, found it hard to suppress him in this regard. (para. 347)"

On the 3rd Defendant

"Taking the evidence to which I have referred as a whole, the only reasonable inference to draw is that D3 was actively engaged in the transaction with full knowledge of its progress, that she was aware of Chau Ching Ngai's plan to inject assets, that she knew how it was intended that the loan should be repaid, namely, by way of the proceeds of those injections of assets, and that she knew that the plan was a specific plan in the manner I have earlier described. She knew of the statements to the contrary in the JA and the OD; she knew that the OD contained a negative statement; it must follow that she knew that the statements in those documents were false and that they were false as a result of an agreement to the effect that those documents would not contain the true picture because to have revealed the truth would have resulted in detailed inquiries by the regulators. (para. 390)"

On the 5th Defendant

"On Charge 2, D5's case is that the purpose of establishing the EC was to protect the cash pool of imGO from irresponsible dissipation by Chau Ching Ngai who was, to a degree, an unknown quantity in Hong Kong; and that such protection was aimed at maintaining the value of imGO, the principal asset of which was its cash, because BOC had taken a pledge on the shares owned by Chau after the takeover as security for the loan, and therefore had a direct interest in ensuring the value of the company was not diminished, which such interest worked also to the benefit of the minority shareholders. Thus, there was no falsity, no conspiracy, no prejudice and no dishonesty. (para. 426)"

"And if she were not a party to the making of such a false statement, she would have shot back a response to D6, with whom she was in a strained relationship in some regards, with a justifiably venomous tone. She did not. They can only be one reason given that she had read the document sufficiently to make one innocuous correction. She knew the falsity would be there because she was party to it. (para. 467)"

"I accept that D5 acted professionally and honestly in other areas of this transaction. She worked assiduously in the interests of her clients. She made no personal gain from this matter. (para. 478)"

On the 6th Defendant

"I decline to adopt the prosecution's generalised criticisms that D6 was arrogant, argumentative, churlish and evasive: such claims need more particularity before they can be substantiated. It is true that he was at times repetitive, he was extremely lengthy in some of his answers. It was often difficult to steer him to the point of the question, though I attempt to do so on occasions. But being combative, forceful and assertive, three words which I suppose say the same thing, is not necessarily a criticism. "

"D6's English is manifestly impeccable but he chose, as he was entitled to, to give his evidence in Cantonese. One of the consequences was that he challenged the interpretation on frequent occasions which needed, so far as was reasonable, some control to avoid confusion, given that he had, on his team, Chinese speaking counsel who could and did on occasions challenge interpretation. There was a slight risk of D6 overbearing the interpreter and doing her job for her which had to be managed without depriving him or his counsel of the chance to make sure that the court received his evidence accurately. A good many of D6 challenges did not alter the substance of what he was saying. In the end, we seem to settle into a reasonable routine of evidence and challenge, which did not substantially interfere with the flow of his testimony. (para. 483)"

"In the end, we have a highly educated, intelligent, confident, experienced and senior lawyer, charged with offences which, in the invent of conviction will ruin him, and he is entitled, within reasonable bounds, to have his say in the way that he wants to. And that goes for the others too. (para. 484)"

"If one were to extract the kernel of his case, it might be put in this way: he was instructed to act on behalf of Chau/GT and accepted his instructions in good faith. He was lied to by his clients who are established as fraudsters. He had no grounds to go behind his instructions which concealed the frauds, particularly the beneficial ownership of the properties which it was intended ultimately to sell to imGO. He advised, as contemporaneous materials show, that if there was a settled or concrete intention to inject assets into imGO, it should be disclosed. His instructions were that there was not such an intention. It was obvious to the market, the regulators, the shareholders, the original board of the imGO, that in due course, there would be injections of assets or acquisitions of assets to develop the company into a property company, that much was disclosed in the JA and the composite OD and, in any event, was obvious from the fact of the takeover of a cash rich, listed company with little other business and few other assets. Unless the new majority shareholder intended simply to sit on the pile of cash, which might make the whole enterprise rather pointless, asset injection within the rules was inevitable. The rules in question were the "new listing rules" i.e., that assets injected after 6 to 12 months, depending on the discretion of the takeover team at the SEHK, would, subject to the very substantial acquisition rules, the connected transaction rules and so forth, be permitted without the takeover being treated as a reverse takeover or a backdoor listing. Such injections were lawful, proper activities and if the rules were followed, would be sanctioned by the regulators. So that was expected by everyone. However, there was no specific plan to inject any assets other than in this manner, or at least, D6 did not know of such a plan."