HKSAR v. FAN TING YAN, YUKI

DCCC 283/2023

[2024] HKDC 2057

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 283 OF 2023

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

________________________

Charge

1.  The Defendant was originally charged with 14 charges of fraud (charges 1 to 14), contrary to section 16A of Theft Ordinance, Cap. 210.  She pleaded not guilty to all the charges, and she had a case to answer on 12 charges of fraud (except charges 11 and 12).

2.  The particulars of each offence are the same (except the date of the offence, the name of the policy holder and the numbers of the insurance application policy), i.e.

“FAN Ting-yan, Yuki, on or about the (date of offence), in Hong Kong, by deceit, namely by falsely representing to AXA China Region Insurance Company Limited (“the Company / AXA[1]”)  that the insurance policy application numbered (the number)  was genuinely taken out by (name of the Policy Holder), and with intent to defraud, induced the Company to approve the said insurance policy application and release bonuses and commissions calculated in accordance with the policy of the Company, which resulted in benefit to the said FAN Ting-yan, Yuki, or in prejudice or substantial risk of prejudice to the Company.”

The prosecution case

3.  Mr John Marray represented the prosecution.  He submitted that the charges (except charges 11 & 12)  related to 6 policy holders, and the prosecution case is that none of the 6 policy holders took out the insurance policies which are the subject matter of the charges.  None of the policy holders paid any premium for the policies or any sum towards the policies.  They did not even know that the policies had been taken out in their names. Some of the details of the policies were false and the purported signatures on the policies were not theirs.  The defendant submitted the policies to the Underwriting Department (hereinafter referred to as the UD)  of AXA.  As a result of which, the defendant received first year commission for the policies, and renewal commission in some cases and the upline managers also received commission on the policies[2]. AXA paid commission into the defendant’s HSBC account every month.  A few days after the commission was deposited into the accounts, the defendant transferred that sum to another account.  Somebody other than the policy holders had paid premiums in order for commission to be paid to the defendant.

Defence case

4.  Mr David Boyton represented the defendant.  The defence submitted that:

(a)  there was a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the respective insurance policies were NOT genuinely taken out by prosecution witnesses (PW)  i.e. PW1, PW2, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW8;

(b)  there was a possibility that the insurance policies were tampered with by someone other than the defendant at AXA after she handed in the signed, blank proposal forms;

(c)  the PWs failed to come up to proof to various degrees, and their evidence cannot be relied upon.

Trial proceedings

Prosecution evidence

5.  As shown in paragraphs 6 to 21 below, the evidence of this case include the testimony of nine prosecutions witnesses, admitted facts, documentary exhibits and the video recorded interviews of the defendant.

PWs’ testimony

(PW1, 2, 5 to 8)

6.  PW1, 2, 5 to 8 were the purported insurance policy holders[3]. They each gave evidence that he/she did not purchase the subject insurance policies. Their evidence will be dealt with later.  

7.  The table below shows the undisputed details of the subject insurance policies purportedly purchased by the PWs.  The amount of the bonuses and commissions released to the defendant for each insurance policy is not in dispute.  It will be mentioned below and in Annex 1[4].

Witness	Charge	Policy Exhibit No.	Insured Amount	1st Year Premium amount paid	Policy signed / approved	Policy lapsed
PW1 POON MAN YEE CORDIA	Charge 7	P46	$120,000   P.542	$2,834   P.554	24 Nov 15 27 Nov 15	15 Jan 18
	Charge 8	P47	$5,700,000   P.559	$132,549   P.568	24 Nov 15 27 Nov 15	15 May 17
PW2   HUNG TIN YAU	Charge 13	P53	$120,000   P.655	$1,332   P.670	27 Sep 16 30 Sep 16	15 Nov 17
	Charge 14	P54	$6,200,000   P.673	$343,066   P.688	27 Sep 16 30 Sep 16	15 Nov 17
PW5   LAI WING YEE	Charge 3	P40	$240,000   P.456	$553   P.465	20 Mar 15 27 Mar 15	15 May 17
	Charge 4	P41	$5,800,000   P.470	$308,738   P.482	25 Mar 15 31 Mar 15	15 Dec 16
PW6 YU YUK PUI	Charge 5	P43	$240,000   P.499	$606   P.508	23 Mar 15 27 Mar 15	15 May 17
	Charge 6	P44	$5,800,000   P.513	$314,380   P.525	25 Mar 15   31 Mar 15	15 Dec 16
PW7 CHAN WAI YICK	Charge 9	P49	$5,600,000   P.583	$307,422   P.598	22 Jun 16 28 Jun 16	15 Aug 17
	Charge 10	P50	$120,000   P.601	$3,529.2   P.616	22 Jun 16 28 Jun 16	15 Aug17
PW8 FOK CHUN YUEN JACKY	Charge 1	P37	$3,800,000   P. 408	$61,178   P.420	24 Nov14 28 Nov 14	27 Jan 15
	Charge 2	P38	$3,850,000 P. 423   $500,000 P. 436	$266,785.5   P.411	19 Dec 14 5 Jan 15	14 Oct 16

8.  PW4 (Wong Chun Ming)  was a hostile witness and I ruled there was no case to answer in relation to charges 11 and 12.

(PW3)

9.  PW3 Cheung Mei Chun, a friend of the defendant, testified that she knew the defendant for more than 10 years, and the defendant was a tutor in a kindergarten and an insurance agent of AXA.

10.  In 2015, the defendant called PW3 and invited her to become an insurance agent.  The defendant told PW3 to obtain an insurance agent’s licence and did not need to actually sell insurance policies to customers because her upline manager would find customers to buy insurance policies.  The defendant told PW3 that the Company would pay her (PW3)  commission and PW3 had to give the commission in full back to the upline manager.  The upline manager would pay PW3 $3,000 a month. PW3 refused the invitation.

11.  In September or October 2017, the defendant, again, asked PW3 to become an insurance agent.  What the defendant said this time was more or less the same in 2015. PW3 was also told that the upline manager would help her (PW3)  handle tax matters.  PW3 refused.

12.  In cross-examination, PW3 agreed that she reported the matter to ICAC in November 2018, one year after.  She explained that she only talked about the incident with her sister who worked in the insurance industry in 2018.  Her sister considered that the defendant had violated the law.  In order to prevent others being tempted to break the law, PW3 decided to speak up. 

13.  It was put to PW3 that the defendant spread rumors that she (PW3)  had a relationship with a Mr Leung.  She disagreed that she had therefore exaggerated her evidence in order to get troubles for the defendant.

(PW9)

14.  PW9 Tseng Ming-fai is the Assistant Manager of the UD of AXA.  In his witness statement[5], PW9 gave details in relation to the names and types of the products of the 12 subject insurance policies; how the premium for such policy was calculated etc.  He said the defendant sold all the subject insurance policies.  He also said the UD believed that the defendant did (i)  explain the policies to the mentioned proposed insured; (ii)  witness the proposed insured sign the policy application form; (iii)  fill in and sign the application forms; and (iv)  indicate that she was the responsible agent of the policies.  Otherwise, the UD would have suspended the underwriting procedure and rejected the application. 

15.  In cross-examination, PW9 agreed that according to the practice 10 years ago, once an insurance application was approved, a notice would be sent to the correspondence address of the policy holder.  PW9 said when the Company issued letters to the clients, the AXA logo would appear on such letters. 

16.  PW9 also said when the UD received policy applications, the UD would compare the signature of the insurance agent on such application with the signature appeared on the financial consultant’s report.

Section 65B[6]

17.  Miss Cheung Kam-chu, customer service representative of AXA, gave a witness statement[7]in relation to the logistic processing of the insurance policies submitted by insurance agents.

18.  Miss Siu Natalie Hoi-ling, Senior Officer of the UD of AXA, gave a witness statement[8] among which she mentioned the factors for consideration in granting approval to an insurance application.

Admitted Facts

19.  Regarding the Admitted Facts, they include a number of things:-

(A)  The role and personal details of the defendant:-

(i)  the defendant had another English name, namely “Chloe”

(ii)  the defendant was a licensed insurance agent;

(iii)  between 1 October 2014 and 29 July 2017, the defendant was a financial consultant (also known as “insurance agent”)  of AXA;

(iv)  when the defendant joined AXA, she was assigned the agent code 112177-04-074185. Her payroll account was an account numbered 584-8-001961 held with the Hong Kong and Shanghai Bank Limited (hereinafter refer to as the HSBC a/c);

(v)  the defendant was the sole signatory and only user of the HSBC a/c;

(vi)  the defendant was the registered and only user of mobile phone number 6082 2271.

(B)  The business of AXA;

(C)  The details in relation to each of the insurance policies allegedly taken out by the PWs; and

(D)  Mr Cheung Wai Pan was never an employee of AXA.

Trial Bundles

20.  Four Trial Bundles (hereinafter referred to as 1^st to 4^th TB)  were submitted to court and they contain documents including all the insurance policies purportedly taken out by the PWs; bankers’ affirmations; certified true copy of the defendant’s commission reports; computer certificates etc.

VRI of the defendant

21.  Two video-recorded interviews of the defendant made under caution on 20 July 2020 were not challenged.  They were played in court.  In gist, the defendant said, inter alia,

(a)  she now worked for FWD General Insurance Company Limited, and previously worked for AXA for around two years;

(b)  she joined AXA in 2014 and left in 2017 during which she sold twenty something insurance policies;

(c)  both Au Sin Yee and Ng Ka Wai, Deep, were her upline manager in AXA;

(d)  she was required to meet every client to explain the policy to the client; then she had to prepare a financial report for the client; all the procedures were done step by step;

(e)  she had to see if the client could afford the insurance policy and to give recommendations to the clients;

(f)  she secured all the policies herself; most of the clients were her friends; some were referred by her friends; she was not familiar with some of them; she had to meet the client to understand what his/her needs were;

(g)  her practice was to meet every client; she could not sell the policies without meeting the clients; after the policy was issued, she had to pass it to the clients in person; these were the rules and practice that she had to follow;

(h)  sometimes she provided information to the secretary who would then fill in the information on the policies for her;

(i)  after a policy was issued she was required to pass it to the client in person;

(j)  once the client had agreed to take out a policy she would collect payment from the client; she was not allowed to receive cash from the clients to make payment; if the clients paid in cash the client had to make the deposit themselves;

(k)  whilst working for AXA she sold around twenty something policies;

(l)  the 25 sets of policy (shown to her during VRIs)  she sold (including the 14 policies in the charges)  were submitted to AXA through her;

(m)  she was entitled to commission on every policy sold, and AXA did not owe her any commission; she supposed all the commissions for the 25 sets of policy that she sold had been released to her;

(n)  when ICAC asked her the reason why she would transfer her monthly commissions, totaling 3,408,534.93, within days or a week to someone called Cheung Wai Pan, the defendant said Cheung Wai Pan was her secondary school classmate, and she went to his home to do tutoring works for his kids for $2,000 per month;

(o)  Cheung Wai Pan issued 9 cheques and made 3 transfers to the defendant, and the defendant said the sum of money was tutoring fees.

No case submission

22.  After the conclusion of the prosecution case, the defence made a no case submission.  Having heard counsel’s submissions, I ruled that there was a case to answer on all charges except charges 11 and 12 which relate to the evidence of PW4.  To this end, I have considered all the evidence adduced and borne in mind the principles laid down in R v Galbraith [1981] 1 WLR 1039.

Defence

23.  The defendant did not give nor call evidence.

Closing Submissions

24.  Both counsel filed with the court their written closing submissions and made oral submissions in court.

Directions

25.  In reaching my verdict, I bear in mind that the prosecution has the burden to prove the charges against the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt.  The defendant has to prove nothing. 

26.  I direct myself that before I can convict I must be sure of the guilt of the defendant on each charge, each charge being considered separately.

27.  I remind myself that when drawing inferences from the evidence the inference must be the only reasonable inference to draw against the defendant from the facts proved. 

28.  The defendant had made representations in her VRI under caution. She is of clear record and so I shall give the necessary directions as to her credibility and propensity to commit crimes.

29.  Regarding the VRIs, it contained both inculpatory and exculpatory parts. In accordance with the principles in R v Sharp (1988)  1 WLR 7, I have considered the entirety of the VRIs.  In reaching my verdict, I take the view that the inculpatory parts are true admissions and I attach full weight to them.  In respect of the exculpatory parts, they were not given under oath and not tested under cross-examination.  Having considered the entire record and all the evidence adduced, I will not attach any weight to the exculpatory parts.

30.  The defendant elected not to testify and no adverse inference should be drawn against him for doing so.  However, it means that there is nothing from the defendant to undermine, contradict or explain the evidence put before the court by the prosecution. 

31.  The elements of the offence of fraud are (i)  a deceit practiced by the defendant (whether by deliberate or reckless words or conduct)  (ii)  with intent to defraud (iii)  which induced another person to do or not to do something (iv)  resulting in benefit to someone or prejudice (or a risk of it)  to someone other than the defendant: HKSAR v Ho Ka Keung [2009] 1 HKC 651[9].

32.  “Deceit” in s16A includes words or conduct (whether by any act or omission).  To deceive is to induce a man to believe that a thing is true which is false, and which the person practicing the deceit knows or believes to be false[10].

33.  As to “intention to defraud”, by virtue of s16A(2)  a person is treated as having an intent to defraud if he intends that by practicing the deceit, he would induce another person to do or not to do an act with the result set out in element (iv).[11]

34.  I bear in mind the meanings of “act”, “deceit”, “gain”, “loss” and “prejudice” as defined under s16A(3). 

35.  With this in mind, I turn to consider the evidence.  

36.  The prosecution said an inference can be drawn from PW3’s evidence that the defendant was well aware of false policies being made in the Company.

37.  I do not accept this submission.  Given PW3’s evidence does not relate to any of the charges and that she knows nothing about the insurance policies, subject matter of the present charges, I consider that her evidence is not relevant and I attach no weight to it.

38.  I now turn to the case of each PW.  It is not in dispute that the defendant was the responsible agent for all the insurance policies mentioned below[12].

39.  Mr Boyton submitted that there are two set of charges:-

(a)  the 1^st set of charges relates to PW2 (charges 13 & 14)  and PW7 (charges 9 & 10)  who “took out” insurance policies and the evidence shows that they both did not know the defendant. These charges, he said, must be looked at separately and individually as the evidence against those 4 charges is completely different from the other set (containing 8 charges)  where there is a physical link to the defendant.

(b)  The other set of charges relates to those who were friends of the defendant (PW5, 6 & 8)  or an individual who was introduced to her, namely PW1.

40.  In his written closing submissions, Mr Boyton dealt with the 1^st set of charges 13, 14, 9 & 10 followed by the other set of charges, I consider it appropriate to follow this sequence.  

Charges 13 and 14 relate to Hung Tin-yau (PW2)

41.  Charges 13 and 14 relate to Hung Ting-yau (PW2).  His evidence relates to two insurance policies, P53 & P54.

42.  PW2 testified that some of the particulars which appear on P53 & 54 were false.  He did not know Fan Ting-yan Yuki.  He had never worked for Cargo Supervisor nor worked at HKIA Tower at 1, Sky Plaza Road.  He did not work in Custom Service.  He was not a Customer Service Manager.  He did not have tertiary education or above and did not earn $70,000 a month.  In 2016, he worked in a logistic company earning about $15,000 - $16,000 per month.  He was not 5”6’ but 5”10’.  He was not married at the time.  The signatures on P53 & P54 were not his.  He knew nothing about them nor the payments for the two policies and he was not in a position to pay premium $343,066.

43.  For his personal details, he had given them to a person called Ah Keung who also worked in the warehouse and he said that Ah Keung wanted him to take out an insurance policy of a few hundred dollars to help a friend boost up the sales.  He agreed to help Ah Keung but no one from the insurance company approached him; no one asked him to sign insurance forms; and Ah Keung did not give him anything to sign.  He paid $1,000 to Ah Keung whom he knew was not an insurance agent. 

44.  PW2 said he did not receive any correspondence from AXA about these policies including the computer print-out (premium payment record)  at page 686 2^nd TB.  He said he had moved out from the address which had been given and which was his father’s address.

45.  It is admitted that commission was paid by AXA to the defendant in the amount of HK$791.20 for P53 and HK$203,781.20 for P54.

46.  In the VRI, the defendant said she could not remember the policies “this also doesn’t ring a bell, can’t remember; introduced by a friend maybe”[13]; “I barely had recollection”[14]; “not my handwriting”[15] (referring to the information filled in on the policy); “not sure about these”[16] (whether the signatures was hers).

Charges 9 and 10 relate to Chan Wai-yick (PW7)

47.  Charges 9 and 10 relate to Chan Wai-yick (PW7).  His evidence relates to two insurance policies, P49 & P50.  

48.  PW7 testified that the name of his employer, the address of his workplace, his mobile phone numbers and his residential address appeared on the policies were correct.

49.  The monthly income stated to be $60,000 to $80,000 was, as he said, “absolutely not correct”.  His income was $22,000 to $23,000.  He did not have $1.5m liquid assets as stated in the policies.  At that time, he only had a small sum in his bank account and he did not trade in shares.  His weight was incorrect, and he was never as heavy as 180 pounds. 

50.  He knew nothing about P49 & P50.  He first saw P49 & 50 was the time he gave his witness statement to the ICAC.  The signatures on P49 & 50 were not his.  He did not pay the premiums for both policies.  He did not know Fan Ting-yan Yuki nor the bank transfer slips (at pages 598 & 616)  for both polices.  No one told him that an insurance policy had been brought on his behalf.

51.  He did not know how his personal details could appear on the policies and he could not remember if he had received any letters from AXA about the policies. 

52.  In cross-examination, he agreed that he did not know if someone stole his personal data.

53.  It is admitted that commission was paid by AXA to the defendant in the amounts of HK$182,608.66 for P49 and HK$1,835.18 for P50.

54.  In the VRI, the defendant was not sure if the signature on P49 was hers[17], and she could not remember the signature on P50 was hers[18]. She could not recall PW7 “not a friend, no clue about this at all, this person”[19].

Submissions by Defence (Charges 9, 10, 13 & 14)

55.  The defence submitted that the evidence of PW2 & PW7 supports the possibility that someone had or may have tampered with the proposals allocated under the defendant’s name.  Both witnesses did not know who entered their details onto the polices, and the defendant responded to charges 9, 10, 13 and 14 in her VRIs that “cannot remember this”; “I have no clue at all about this person”.  The defence also referred to counter 53 of the 2^nd VRI and submitted that the defendant said “Hung Ting Yau never submitted a policy to AXA”.  (However, I note the defendant did not, at counter 53, say this.[20])

56.  Therefore, in relation to these four charges, there is no evidence that the defendant had submitted P49, 50, 53 & 54. So there was  no inducement made to AXA.  In other words, there is no actus reus.

57.  There are other submissions which will be dealt with below.

Analysis - (Charges 13 & 14 – PW2 & Charges 9 & 10 – PW7)

58.  Before I deal with the defence submissions, I want to emphasis that I will consider charges 9, 10, 13 & 14 separately though they are grouped under the same heading.

59.  Having considered the evidence of PW2 & PW7 including that (i)  the defence raised no criticism against the credibility and reliability of PW7; (ii)  the inherent improbable a man earning not a large sum would take out insurances policies of that amount and then let the policies lapse so that all the money would be lost to him, I find PW2 & PW7 credible and reliable.  I accept their testimony as true.  In gist, they did not know the defendant[21]; did not purchase the subject policies; did not sign on the polices; and did not pay any premium for such policies.

60.  Also, I reject the submission that there was no actus reus on the part of the defendant. 

61.  I note in the VRI, the defendant admitted that all the policies were submitted to AXA under her name:

Counter	Speaker	Content
1112	ICAC	…25 policies have been shown to you one by one.  We spent a lot of time, you could confirm some to be your signatures, but not sure about some others
1113	Defendant	I could confirm some, but not sure about some others
1114	ICAC	So these 25 sets of polices were submitted to AXA through you
1115	Defendant	Yes

62.  I also note that the defendant’s name appear on these 4 policies (in fact on all subject policies relating to other charges).

63.  It is not in dispute that commissions of these 4 policies were released to the defendant.

64.  As such, I am sure the defendant had submitted these 4 policies to AXA.

65.  Based on the above, the actus reus was proved.

66.  The defence said someone had or may have tampered with the proposals allocated under the defendant’s name.

67.  The defendant did not testify.  This is her right, however, it means that there is no evidence from the defence to undermine / contradict / explain the prosecution case.  There is simply no evidence before me that someone had or may have tampered with the proposals.

68.  The submission that someone might have tampered with the proposals defies common sense.  The forger may run the risk if AXA, in assessing the subject policies, approach the defendant for more details / clarifications.  By then the defendant will definitely discover that the policies have been unbeknown to her submitted on her behalf with her signatures on these polices. What gain can the forger obtain from doing this?  The answer is no.

69.  Further, the most important feature is that the forger derived no monetary gain from doing so.  After approval of the policies, AXA will give commission to the defendant but not to the forger.  It is not in dispute that the defendant was given commissions for these 4 policies.

70.  Notwithstanding it is unknown how the true personal particulars of PW2 & PW7 appear on their respective insurance policies, the result is that these policies were ultimately submitted to AXA by the defendant and under her name, and the UD approved them.

71.  The defence submitted that the defendant’s signature on the “Application for Agent’s Contract” document held at AXA (page 5 of TB), is not similar with most of the signatures on the insurance policy forms (applicable to all PWs).

72.  As the prosecution rightly said, “if one compares the defendant’s signature in the “Application for Agent’s Contract” at page 5 of TB with the bank opening signature at page 1117 of TB, one can see differences there.”  Further, I note that there is difference between the defendant’s own signatures at page 5 and page 17 (another Application for Agent’s Contract).  It is plain that everyone can see the difference among her signatures.  Therefore, it is not surprising at all that the defendant’s signature on P1 differs from those appearing on the insurance policies of all PWs (PW 1 to 8). 

73.  Moreover, PW9 was particularly asked if there was a difference (i)  between the defendant’s signature on page 5 and on page 461 (P40 the policy of PW5); and (ii)  between page 461 and page 462 of P40.  Regarding (i), PW9 said “I do not think there is a big difference”; regarding (ii), PW9 said “cannot see big difference, a matter of perspective.” According to PW9, those signatures bear no big differences.

74.  The defence said there is no evidence that the proposal forms were ever signed by the defendant; no evidence that the defendant had handled those 4 policies to AXA other than the fact her name is the handling agent. 

75.  Without the signatures of the insurance agent, it is for sure that the UD would not approve the insurance applications.  It is not in dispute that the defendant was, at all material times, an insurance agent /financial consultant of AXA; she got commissions from these 4 policies after the approval of AXA; she admitted AXA did not owe her any commissions; she admitted AXA had given her commissions for the 25 sets of policies.  The amount of commissions for charges 9 & 10 was $184,443.84 and for charges 13 & 14 was $204,572.4. The amount of each commission is absolutely a large sum.  The commissions went to the pocket of the defendant, not anyone else.  As such, I am sure that she submitted the policies and therefore she expected to receive commissions, and I am sure that she signed these 4 policies though the signatures appear on each of them may bear some differences.  Even if she did not personally sign these policies, it does not alter the facts that she was the one who submitted these policies bearing her name to AXA.

76.  The admitted facts show:-

“13. …the UD will decide whether to approve the policy application based on the information provided in the insurance application form such as the policy applicant’s health condition, occupation and income...

14. whether the sum insured of the policy purchased by the policy applicant is reasonable and whether the policy applicant can afford the premium based on the income and age stated on the insurance application form.

16. It was in the belief that the information filled in on the forms mentioned was correct that the UD approved the policies concerned. The UD believed that such information including that the insurance agents shown on the application forms had personally explained the policy contents to the proposed policy holders and witnessed that the proposed insured had signed on the application forms, and also the occupation and/ or income filled in or the insurance application forms was all true and therefore handled the insurance and approved the policies concerned…

17. AXA requires all information on the documents submitted to it to be true and accurate. If AXA is aware of any inaccurate information on an insurance application form, for example the responsible agent as stated on the insurance application form did not participate in the sales and/or witness the customer’s signature of the insurance application documents, AXA would not approve the insurance application ore release commission to the agent.

19. If AXA knows that an insurance agent defrauds AXA of commission, such as misappropriating a customer’s personal particulars and/or forging a customer’s signature to make insurance applications, AXA would not approve the application for the policy or release commissions to the agent and his/her up line manager. AXA considers this as an act that devise AXA and causes losses to the Company.

77.  The admitted facts also show that:

a. it was in the belief that PW2 did sign the insurance application forms P53 & P54 and his information filled in on the forms, namely he was then customer manager of Cargo Supervisor with a monthly income of $70,000 that the UD approved the policies P53 and P54 of PW2.

b. it was in the belief that PW7 did sign the insurance application forms P49 & P50 and his information thereon was true that the UD approved the policies P49 and P50 of PW7.

78.  By submitting the insurance application forms to the UD under her name, the defendant knew: she did not know PW2 & PW7; she had not personally explained the terms and conditions of the policy to them; PW2 & PW7 had never, in her presence or through her arrangements/handling, signed on the forms and purchased the insurances; she knew the forms contained false particulars.

79.  By submitting the forms to UD through the defendant’s arrangement, the defendant practiced a deceit, namely by falsely representing to AXA that the 4 policies were genuinely taken out by PW2 and PW7.  Obviously, she, with intent to defraud, induced AXA to approve the policies and release bonuses and commissions to her.  

80.  Had AXA known that the policies contained false particulars, it would not have approved the policies.  AXA was induced to approve the policies and released bonuses and commissions which resulted in benefit to the defendant and caused loss to the Company (harm the interests of AXA; harm AXA’s reputation; cause losses to AXA)[22].

81.  The prosecution has proved all the elements of each charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

82.  The defendant is convicted of charges 9, 10, 13 & 14.

Charges 1 to 8

Defence Submissions

83.  The defence said this set of charges (1 to 8)  relate to those who were friends of the defendant (PW5, 6 & 8)  or an individual who was introduced to her, namely PW1.

84.  In addition to making criticisms against the testimony of each witness, the defence has also raised criticisms applicable to all these 4 witnesses.  In short, it is the defendant’s submissions that the court cannot rely on the evidence of PW1, 5, 6 & 8 and disregard the possibility that they had entered into a contract with AXA.  The court must accept that most of the witnesses did not come up to proof and had something to hide.  There must be a doubt as to whether they told the truth to the defendant as to the most material aspect of the prosecution case, their employment and income; and in the alternative someone had, without the defendant’s knowledge, entered the erroneous details at AXA.

85.  I will first briefly summarize the evidence of each witness.  Then I will deal with the criticisms against each witness which are fact sensitive followed by the overall criticisms.

Charges 1 and 2 relate to Fok Chung-yuen (PW8)

86.  Charges 1 and 2 relate to Mr Fok Chung-yuen Jacky (PW8). His evidence relates to two insurance policies, P37 & P38.  There is also a Policy Service Application Form (P39)  in which there is a reduction of coverage for P38.

87.  PW8 testified that the defendant was the classmate of his wife, and he came to know the defendant in 2013-2014. 

88.  At the relevant time, PW8 was a sole proprietor of Home Aveda Salon earning $30,000 to $40,000 a month but not $100,000 per month as stated in both policies.  He said the signatures in P37 to P39 were not his.  He knew nothing about the policies and he did not pay any premiums nor apply to reduce policy amounts.  He knew nothing about the money transfer of premiums nor any of the other subsequent payments.  No one had ever shown him the said documents and explained the contents to him.  He had never discussed taking out insurance policy with the defendant. 

89.  In cross-examination, PW8 agreed that he told the ICAC in 2020 that someone came to the hair salon and asked him and his wife to sign documents relating to insurance application but he did not sign.  

90.  The admitted facts show:

a. it was in the belief that the current monthly income of $100,000 filled in on PW8’s insurance application form was true that the UD approved the above two policies for PW8.

b. Commission was paid by AXA to the defendant in the amounts of HK$4,041.78 for policy 37 and HK$196,821.49 for P38.

91.  In the VRI of the defendant, the defendant admitted that she realized PW8 was the boyfriend of her friend.  PW8 operated a salon in Hung Hom in the past[23]. She asked PW8 to take out an insurance policy.  She confirmed that her signature was on the policy[24]. She could not remember how PW8 paid her the premium whether it was by way of bank-in to the Company’s account[25].

Submissions by defence (Charges 1 & 2)

92.  The defence said PW8 accepted in cross-examination that his memory may have been affected by the lapse of time.  In chief, he said he never discussed insurance matter with the defendant.  In cross-examination, he accepted that the defendant came to his hair salon and discussed insurance matters.  He did accept there was a possibility that he, and his wife, may have signed some documents relating to insurance policies.  This is in line with the above submission that someone could have substituted the original signed document, as there is now a possibility that PW8 had signed another (genuine)  policy of insurance.  Therefore, a reasonable doubt exists that it was the defendant who had submitted the two (false)  policy applications under charges 1 and 2.

93.  There are other submissions which will be dealt with below.

Analysis (Charges 1 & 2 – PW8)

94.  I reject the defence submission (para 92 above).  The cross-examination began with the following questions which related to PW8’s memory:

Q: Because of lapse of time your memory was not clear?”

PW8: not sure

Q: You actually saw these documents (P37-39)  when you gave a witness statement to ICAC in 2000?

PW8: I can’t remember

Q: Because of lapse of time, your memory is bad

PW8: Ok

95.  The lapse of time affecting PW8’s memory related to the matter whether he had seen the two policies but not whether he had signed the two policies. In fact, PW8 was sure that he had never seen and signed the policies and never paid any premiums for P37 to P38.  

96.  The defence said PW8 had accepted that the defendant came to his hair salon.  This saying is incorrect.  The question put to PW8 was “In fact the defendant did come and ask you and your wife to buy insurance policies?”  PW8 replied “I really can’t remember”.  He then agreed that he told the ICAC that someone came to his hair salon and asked him and his wife to sign something which related to insurance applications but he did not sign.  In re-examination, he repeated that he did not sign P37 to P39.

97.  PW8 was shown every page of the documents in ICAC and in court.  He had read the contents and looked at the signatures appeared thereon.  He would not have mistaken his own signatures.  As such, I am sure that PW8 did not sign P37 to P39.

98.  The defence emphasized that PW8 said he might have signed other documents.  Even if it is true, those documents had nothing to do with the present charges.  The subject matters of charges 1 and 2 relate to P37 & P38 both of which, as repeatedly confirmed by PW8, were not signed by him.

99.  The submission that someone could have substituted the original signed document is too far fetching.  It is unexplainable and illogical for someone to do this, and most importantly there is simply no evidence of such before me. 

100.  The defence argued that someone had forged the signatures of the defendant.  First, it defies common sense that someone had done this and derived no benefit from it.  Second, the defendant admitted in her VRI that, in relation to PW8, “my signature is on the policy”[26]. I attach full weight to what she said.  In other words, it was the defendant who signed on P37 to P38 but not someone else.

101.  It is an admitted fact that commission was paid by AXA to the defendant in the amounts of $4,041.78 for policy P37 and $196,821.49 for policy P38.  In other words, the defendant, and she alone, not someone else, pocketed the commission arose from P37 & P38. 

102.  The defence said PW9 testified that there must have been more than one letter sent to the residential addresses of PW8.  The matter would have been brought to PW8’s attention when he received the letters and therefore would have made enquiries with his wife. 

103.  In cross-examination, the defence did not ask PW8 if he had received any correspondence from AXA.  The defence did not refer PW8 to the two computer print-out “Premium Payment Record” (pages 418 & 439 of TB)  which addressed PW8 as the recipient.  There is therefore no evidence before me if PW8 had ever received the print-out or other AXA correspondence.

104.  In any event, I rule that no such computer print-out was sent to any of the PWs.  On this matter, I have considered all the circumstances of the case including the following.

105.  Firstly, for each witness (PW1, 2, 5, 6, 7 & 8)  there were two such computer printouts, “Premium Payment Record”, addressed to them[27]. All of them bear no company name nor AXA logo.  All PWs denied receiving such printouts.

106.  Secondly, PW9 was only shown the computer printout at page 439 of TB which addressed PW8 as the recipient.  He was asked if it was issued by AXA.  He said “yes” because the policy number and agent number appeared on it but he also said he was not sure why it had no company name / AXA logo.  In cross-examination PW9 said all letters sent by AXA bore the company logo: “When Company issued letters there would be a logo”.  This piece of evidence was not further challenged.  In re-examination, PW9 said “Normally speaking letters issued by the Company must have AXA logo.”

107.  Thirdly, PW1[28] said she did not receive the computer printout at page 552 of TB and she considered that it was not issued by AXA.  She explained why she came to this view.  She said she had bought a fund (not subject matter of the charges)  with AXA and she received letters with AXA letterhead relating to the fund.

108.  Having considered all these matters, I find that all the  computer print-out[29] which bear no AXA name / logo and which named each of the PWs in this case were not issued by AXA. 

109.  Turning back to the case of PW8, I have considered all the submissions made.  Having considered the evidence of PW8, I find him not shaken under cross-examination.  Although some of the personal particulars on P37 & P38 were true (e.g. PW8’s date of birth; the address; the name of the hair salon), I bear in mind that PW8 and the defendant have known each other as friends, it follows that the defendant has learned some of the personal particulars of PW8.

110.  The prosecution said “it is inherently improbable a man earning $30,000-40,000 would take out insurance policies of that amount and reduce the insured amount after 1 year and then let the policies lapse so that all the money would be lost to him.”  This saying is both logical and reasonable.  Each of the insured amount and the premium for each policy was a large sum of money.  If PW8 had purchased the two policies, he would not have forgotten about it and/or mixed it up with other insurance purchases.

111.  I find PW8 a credible and reliable witness and I accept his evidence as truth.  In gist, I find as a fact that PW8 did not buy and sign P37 and P38.

Charges 3 and 4 relate to Lai Wing-yee (PW5)

112.  Charges 3 and 4 relate to Lai Wing-yee (PW5).  Her evidence relates to two insurance policies, P40 & P41.  There is also a Policy Service Application Form (P42)  in which there is a reduction of coverage of P41.

113.  PW5 testified that she is the wife of Mr Yu Yuk Pui (PW6).  She has known the defendant for 20 years.  She has worked in the Duty Free Service since 2012.  In 2015, she was earning $13,000-$14,000 a month, and she had an insurance policy with AIA[30].

114.  In respect of P40 and P41, PW5 confirmed the particulars relating to her name, date of birth, HKID card numbers and her home address were true.  She said there were false particulars on P40 & P41: (i)  she had never worked for Winson Mortors (HK)  Co. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as Winson); (ii)  never been to the address of Winson; (iii)  never worked as a clerk in the business of vehicle trading; (iv)  not earning $30,000-$50,000; (v)  the telephone number did not belong to her; (vi)  not of 165cm tall; (vii)  did not know the defendant for 1 year; (viii)  did not know Au Sin Yee (a name which appear on P40 & 41).

115.  PW5 said she did not take out P40 & P41 nor sign on them.  The signatures on P40 & P41 did not belong to her.  She had never seen P40, P41 and P42 until the ICAC showed her the documents.  She knew nothing of P40 to P42.  No one had ever explained these documents to her.  She did not pay any premium for P40 & P41 nor discuss with the defendant about them.

116.  In cross-examination, she agreed in 2015 she had an insurance policy with AXA (not those discussing in court P40 & 41)  which was a company insurance.  The correspondence relating to the company insurance was sent to the company.  When she was asked if she remembered that she had told the ICAC that she disregarded all the letters sent from AXA, she said “I usually do not open letters”[31].

117.  Having read the witness statement, PW5 confirmed that she told the ICAC that she had provided her own and her husband’s documents, namely the statement of Bank of China; her husband IRD documents and copy of his HKD card (hereinafter referred to as the 3 documents)  to the defendant via WhatsApp.  It was put to PW5 that she did purchase P40 to which she disagreed.  But she agreed that she seemed to have introduced the defendant to a lady who sold skincare products in Waldorf Centre.

118.  In re-examination, PW5 confirmed that her witness statement recorded this “After providing Fan the above information, I no longer bother about the policy.”

119.  The admitted facts show:

a. in the belief that PW5 did sign the insurance application P40 & P41 and the information filled in, namely PW5 was the then secretary of Winson with a monthly income of HK$30,000-$40,000 was true that P40 & P41 were approved by the UD;

b. commission was paid by AXA to the defendant in the amount of $166.98 for P40, and $187,035.06 for P41.

120.  Turning to the defendant’s VRIs, she said PW5 was her friend and had provided the information contained in the policy.  She recognized her signatures at pages 8 & 9 on policy P40 taken out by PW5[32], however, she thought the signature on P41 was not hers[33].

Submissions by Defences (Charges 3 & 4)

121.  PW5 was criticized to be unreliable as her evidence contradicted with the testimony of her husband PW6 in a material particular: PW5 said she did not know the defendant was an insurance agent but PW6 said it was PW5 who told him that the defendant was involved in the insurance industry. 

122.  The defence submitted that the 3 documents would not be passed to any salesperson or insurance agent until after the contract has been signed and awaiting approval.

123.  There are other submissions which will be dealt with below. 

Analysis (Charges 3 & 4 – PW5)

124.  I find that the evidence of PW5 and PW6 did not contradict with each other.

125.  According to the court record[34], PW5 said the defendant was a kindergarten teacher.  She was asked “Do you know if Fan Ting Yan was involved in insurance work? ^[35]” PW5 replied “I cannot remember”[36]. Regarding PW6, he said his wife told him that the defendant engaged in “toddler education and some insurance stuff”. 

126.  In view of the court record, PW5 simply said she “cannot remember” as opposed to she did not know the defendant was an insurance agent. The testimony of both PW5 & PW6 therefore did not contradict with each other.

127.  It is a speculation for the defence to say that the 3 documents would not be passed to any insurance agent until AFTER the contract has been signed and awaiting approval.  The evidence from PW5 is clear, she said “no longer bothered about the policy”, and did not sign nor take out policy P40 & P41.

128.  The defence argued that according to PW9, letters would have been sent out from AXA to the policy holder after the policy was approved.  This would have been brought to PW5’s attention. 

129.  When PW9 gave evidence, he was not specifically asked if any letters had ever been sent to PW5. 

130.  Besides, I note that there are two computer print-out without AXA name / logo (at page 463 and 480 TB[37])  on which PW5’s name and address were stated.  However, it was never put to PW5 that she had received these two print-out.  In fact, PW5 said she had never received any correspondence from AXA in relation to P40 & P41 and she usually did not open letters.

131.  On this issue, I repeat my finding in paragraphs 104 to 108 above.

132.  All the criticisms against PW5 are untenable. The prosecution said “it is inherently improbable that Lai Wing Yee with her salary would buy insurance policies with such large amounts of premium which had to be paid for many years.  But then reduce the policy amount and forfeit the money within a short period of time.”  This saying is both logical and reasonable.  I find her credible and reliable and I accept her evidence.  In gist, she did not purchase P40 & P41; did not sign on them; did not pay any premium for these 2 policies.  No one asked PW5 why she “did not bother about the policy” (i.e. she did not purchase the policies).  Be that as it may, I find that PW5 gave the 3 documents to the defendant because they were friends, and when she gave these documents she had not made up her mind to buy the insurance policies. 

Charges 5 and 6 relate to Yu Yuk Pui (PW6)

133.  Charges 5 and 6 relate to Yu Yuk Pui (PW6).  His evidence relates to two insurance policies, P43 & P44.  There is also a Policy Service Application Form (P45)  to reduce the amount insured for P44.

134.  PW6 testified that he had known the defendant since 2012 because the defendant was a friend of his wife.  PW6 said he was a project manager of an engineering company which he had been working for since 2013.  In 2015, his income was between $20,000 and $30,000 per month.

135.  He did not take out policies P43 & P44 nor discuss with the defendant about insurance matters.  He knew nothing about policies P43, P44, the payment slips, the deposit and the subsequent transfer.  The signatures on the policies were not his.  

136.  False particulars appeared on P43 & P44: he did not work for Winson nor work at KITEC No. 1.  His employer’s business was not vehicle trading.  He was not a clerk.  His monthly income was not $30,000-$50,000 per month. 

137.  He was not sure if his wife had provided a copy of his HKID card to purchase the two policies.  He had no impression of going with his wife to the skincare product shop in Waldorf Garden. 

138.  The admitted facts show:

a. it was in the belief that PW6 did sign the insurance application forms and the information filled in on the application forms namely, he was then a clerk of Winson with a monthly income of HK$30,000-50,000 was true that the two policies of PW6 P43 & 44 were approved by the UD.

b. commission was paid by AXA to the defendant in the amounts of HK$181.94 for policy P43 and HK$190,311.44 for policy P44.

139.  In the VRI, the defendant said PW6 was the husband of PW5.  The signatures on the policies belong to the defendant “should be mine”; “I suppose I signed them”[38] but the information was not filled in by her “…usually I provided the information to the company and the company filled them in for me.”[39]

Submissions by defences (Charges 5 & 6)

140.  The defence said PW6 testified that he did not know that his wife had taken out an insurance policy, or policies, on his behalf which was the case put in cross-examination to PW5.  This contradicts the evidence of his wife PW5. 

141.  There are other submissions which will be dealt with below.

Analysis (Charges 5 & 6 – PW6)

142.  I find that PW5 and PW6 did not contradict with each other.

143.  According to PW5, she accepted that she had provided the 3 documents to the defendant, but then she said she no longer bothered with the policies.  It meant she did not purchase any insurance with the defendant.   In fact, she said she did not pay any money for  P40 & P41. 

144.  Further, the defence did not put to PW5 that she had bought insurance on PW6’s behalf.  On the same matter, the evidence of PW6 is as follows:

Q: You gave a statement to the ICAC in 2020?

A: Yes

Q: Several years before that your wife asked you whether or not she should take out insurance policy with the defendant

A: Yes

Q: You said to your wife “Fine with me, you handle it”

A: Yes

Q: But you do not know the details?

A: Yes

Q: I put it to you that your wife also took out these policies that you have just been shown (P43 and P44)  on your behalf?

A: I do not quite understand

Q: Put it this way do you know that your wife sent your Inland Revenue documents to the defendant Miss Fan?

A: I am not sure

Q: Did you know your wife sent a copy of your HKID card to Fan to purchase 2 insurance polices

A: I am not sure

145.  PW6 did not say / agree that his wife PW5 had bought insurance on his behalf.  Therefore, it is difficult to understand how the two witnesses have contradicted with each other in the manner suggested by the defence.

146.  Again, it was submitted that PW6 would have been made aware of the letters from AXA which were sent to his residential address, and he would have raised the matter with his wife. 

147.  I note that the residential address appear on both policies (P43 dated 23 March 2015 and P44 dated 25 March 2015)  was a flat in Tsuen Wan.  According to PW6, he lived at the Tsuen Wan address since he was born.  However, he said after he married PW5 in 2013, they lived in Tuen Mun.  Letters of AXA, if any, sent to the Tsuen Wan address would not be received by PW6.

148.  In any event, I repeat my findings in paragraphs 104 to 108.

149.  I have considered all the submissions.  PW6 was not shaken under cross-examination.  He is straight-forward, credible and reliable.  I accept his evidence.

Charges 7 and 8 relate to Poon Man-yee Cordia (PW1)

150.  Charges 7 and 8 relate to Poon Man-yee Cordia (PW1).  Her evidence relates to two insurance policies, P46 & P47.  There is also a Policy Service Application Form (P48)  in which there is a reduction of coverage for P47.

151.  PW1 testified that in 2015 she operated a skincare products shop in Waldorf Building in Tuen Mun.  Her approximate income was $20,000 to $30,000 per month.  P46, P47 & P48 were shown to her and she said some of the particulars were true: date of birth, HKID card number, her residential address, mobile phone number.  However, there were false particulars: she did not work at Winson nor in automobile trading; she was not a “Secretary Accounting”; did not earn $56,000 a month; the signatures on P46, P47 & P48 were not hers; she did not weigh 110 pounds at that time.  She knew nothing about the policies, the payment or subsequent payment of premiums, or the reduction in the insured amount.

152.  She did not fill in any form to take out an insurance.  She did not know Fan Tin-yan Yuki nor Chan Wai Kit, both names appear on P46 & P47.  No one explained the said documents to her.  She had never authorized anyone to use her name to have insurance policy nor to sign any insurance policy.  She did not receive any documents from AXA relating to P46 to P48.

153.  When she was asked why her name was used in the insurance form, she said she thought one of her female customers had asked for her personal details in order to obtain an insurance policy for her free of charge.  She did provide her some information.  Upon further consideration, she did not pursue it.  She said “I remember saying that I let it go”.  PW1 could not remember the name of the woman.

154.  She denied that it was Lai Wing Yee (PW5)  who introduced an insurance agent for her.  She said she did not know Lai Wing Yee.

155.  The admitted facts show:-

(a)  in the belief that PW1 did sign P46 & P47 and the information filled in on the forms, namely that she was the then secretary of Winson were true that the UD approved P46 & P47.

(b)  commission was paid by AXA to the defendant in the amounts of HK$2,061.49 for P46 and $80,744.99 for P47.

156.  The defendant in her VRI said PW1 was referred to her by friends.  She was unfamiliar with PW1[40]. She was not sure if it was her signature on the policy but she admitted that she did sell and handle these policies and collected the premium and passed it onto the company[41].

Submisisons by Defence (Charges 7 & 8)

157.  The defence submitted that the evidence of PW1 is confusing.  She initially testified that “probably one of her customers” told her about “free of charge policy insurance” and would give information later. That the policy would be obtained “and let go later”.  There is a possibility that this utterance could have come from someone other than the defendant such as PW5 of PW6.  There is no evidence that this information came from the defendant as she was described as a female financial consultant and not a customer.

158.  The matters relating to the “free of charge” insurance policy is inadmissible hearsay and must be withdrawn as evidence from the hypothetical jury to deliberate on.

159.  There are other submissions which will be dealt with below.

Analysis - Charges 7 & 8 (PW1)

160.  Although PW1 said she had forgotten the identity of the woman who mentioned “free of charge insurance policy”, she was sure that she did not know Lai Wing Yee.  The submission that the utterance could have come from PW5 or PW6 is not supported by any evidence.

161.  Besides, the utterance does not offend the hearsay rule.  PW1 simply explained the reason why she provided her particulars to the female customer not that the insurance was in fact free of charge. 

162.  The defence then submitted that according to PW1, the defendant was a complete stranger and it would be highly improbable that one would hand over such details to that stranger, unless you are committed to purchasing that policy.

163.  It is not known to PW1 why her personal particulars appear on P46 & P47.  She considered that it might relate to her encounter with the female customer (not a stranger)  to whom she had given her some information but then she decided to “let go”.  Her evidence is very clear and she confirmed that she did not purchase the two subject policies.

164.  Regarding the evidence of PW9 that AXA would have sent letters to the residential address of the policy holder, PW1 said she did not receive any documents from AXA including the computer print-out at page 552 of TB. 

165.  I repeat my findings in paragraphs 104 to 108 above.

166.  Having considered all the criticisms against PW1, I come to the view that she is unshaken under cross-examination.  She is credible and reliable.  She gave sensible and logical evidence and I accept her evidence as true.

Did the defendant commit charges 1 to 10, 13 and 14?

167.  For this set of charges (Charges 1 to 8), I repeat myself in saying that I have considered each charge separately.

168.  I reject the contention that PW1, 5, 6 & 8 had each entered into a contract with AXA.  I find all of them are credible and reliable.  Each of them did not buy the subject insurance policies. 

169.  Again, it defies common sense that someone had, without the defendant’s knowledge, entered the erroneous details at AXA.  I do not consider there exists such a person who would secretly do this with a view to deceiving AXA for the benefit of the defendant alone.

170.  As stated in the admitted facts, the commissions arising from this set of charges went to the defendant, and the amounts was huge.  I adopt what I say in paragraphs 66 to 69 above.

171.  The defendant admitted in the VRIs that:

a. she submitted these policies to AXA;

b. she sold and handled the policies of PW1 and collected money;

c. she signed on PW6’s insurance policies; and

d. she confirmed her signature appeared on PW8’s insurance policy.

172.  As previously said, I find all these PWs reliable and credible. They did not sign on the policies.  I draw from all the evidence that the defendant knew that P46 & 47 (PW1, Poon), P40 & 41 (PW5, Lai), P43 & 44 (PW6, Yu), and P37 & 38 (PW8, Fok)  contain false particulars.

173.  She admitted submitting these policies bearing her name as the handling agent to AXA.  As a result, she received commissions.  I am sure that she submitted all these policies (P37, 38, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46 &47)  to AXA. 

174.  Besides, taking into account all the circumstances, I am sure that she signed on these policies.  Even if she did not personally sign these policies, it does not alter the facts that she was the one who submitted these policies bearing her name to AXA.  No one would have tampered with these policies (see: paragraphs 68-75).

175.  I repeat the content of the admitted facts in paragraph 76 above.

176.  By submitting each of these insurance forms which contain false particulars, the defendant practiced a deceit, namely by falsely representing to AXA that each of these policies  P46-47, 40-41, 43-44, and 37-38 were genuinely taken out by these PWs.  Obviously, she, with intent to defraud, induced AXA to approve each of these policies and to release bonuses and commissions to her.

177.  Had AXA known that the policies contain false particulars, it would not have approved the polices.  AXA was induced to approve these policies and released the bonuses and commissions which resulted in benefit to the defendant and caused loss to the Company (harm the interests of AXA, harm AXA’s reputation, cause losses to AXA[42]).

178.  The prosecution has proved all the elements of charges 1 to 8 beyond a reasonable doubt.

Conclusion

179.  All the 12 charges were proved beyond reasonable doubts.

180.  The defendant is convicted of charges 1 to 10, 13 & 14

Annex 1

As set out in para 69 of the Admitted Facts the amount of commission paid for the 12 policies was:

As set out in para 70 of the Admitted Facts:

In the belief the Defendant was selling the 12 policies plus an additionally 2 policies (Wong Chun Ming), AXA also paid the Defendant an additional bonus commission of HK$655,738.83 into the Defendant’s HSBC bank a/c based on the number of polices sold. Details are as follows:

As set out in para 71 of the Admitted Facts:

In the belief that the Defendant sold the 12 policies (and 2 policies from Wong Chun Ming)  her six-upline managers received additional commission and bonus based on the 14 policies of HK$948,562.46.