Court dismisses tycoon's appeal against disclosure ruling
Electronics tycoon William Mong Man-wai failed to have his name cleared after the court yesterday dismissed his appeal against two convictions for failing to disclose his shareholding in the Bank of East Asia.
But Deputy High Court Judge Gerard Muttrie ordered an absolute discharge of the sentence - a fine of $5,000 - explaining that there was no moral culpability in the case.
The judge said in the Court of First Instance yesterday that being a very busy businessman could not justify the 78-year-old's failure to disclose his purchase of two million of the bank's shares in March when he became one of its directors three months later. He said he was satisfied the Securities and Futures Commission had jurisdiction to prosecute the appellant.
'It is reasonable to expect that even the richest of men - if he has authorised the purchase of $40 million worth of shares in a bank - will remember that when he becomes a director of the same bank 10 weeks later,' said Judge Muttrie in his judgment.
'Memory varies from person to person and a busy person may have highly retentive memory while an idle one may have a memory like a sieve ... In any event one might expect a very successful businessman to have a good memory for the investments of his companies,' he said.
The billionaire philanthropist, who has been suffering from prostate cancer for 10 years, faced 12 charges of failure to notify the bank and Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing of his interests in nearly three million Bank of East Asia shares. He was convicted of two of the charges - with fines of $2,500 for each count - and acquitted of the rest by the Eastern Court last August.
David Mong, son of the appellant, who accompanied his father to court, said yesterday they would consider whether to appeal against the court's decision.
But the judge removed Mong's penalty because of the absence of moral culpability in the case. 'There were various exceptional features here which were grounds for the imposition of an absolute discharge,' said Judge Muttrie.
The judge said the appellant had, as his senior counsel Gerard McCoy put in his submission, 'dobbed himself in'.
'He had on learning of his failure in compliance eight years after the event, taken the initiative to admit the same to the authorities. The failure was due to the failure of his corporate and legal advisers to advise him of his duty,' he said.
