Appeal over winning race ticket

A LIFT mechanic who collected nearly $360,000 from the Jockey Club with a lost winning betting ticket argued that he was wrongly convicted of deception when there was no evidence to show he was not entitled to the money.

A LIFT mechanic who collected nearly $360,000 from the Jockey Club with a winning ticket which was lost claims he was wrongly convicted of deception.

Cheung Wai-wan, 27, contended that the Jockey Club was under the obliged to honour the ticket holder, and it was not its duty to check the ownership.

Cheung was found guilty after trial by Magistrate Jonathan Acton-Bond on a charge of obtaining property by deception and was placed on a community service order for a maximum 240 hours.

He was appealing against his conviction on the grounds that there was no element of deception in his case. Mr Justice Keith has reserved judgment. Judgement was served by Mr Justice Keith.

It was the Crown's case that Ng Tai-woon and his wife name not givenwent to the Sha Tin Racecourse on January 27 last year to bet on the night races at Happy Valley.

Mr Ng used a cash voucher to bet and in Race 5, he placed a $600 bet for the multiple tierceelizabeth couldn't explain type of bet and will have to find a sport guy when he's around??? on three horses on a betting machine.

After the race, he realised that he had won but could not find the winning ticket which he had put in his pocket.

Later that evening, Cheung cashed the ticket at a cashier at the Sha Tin Racecourse and received a cheque of $350,000 and $8,890 in cash.

On the following day, Mr Ng's wife checked made enquiry with the Jockey Club before making a report to the police and the Jockey Club's computer record showed that the ticket cashed by Cheung was originally bought purchased with a cash voucher by Mr Ng.

Cheung did not give evidence in his defence.

Cheung's counsel, Frank Wong, on appeal submitted that there was no deception in the case because all the Jockey Club should be concerned with was whether it was paid paying ou on presentation of the ticket.

Even if the Jockey Club had known that the winning ticket was not bought by Cheung - be it might be that he had stolen it or found it - it was still under obligation to pay, he said.

The Jockey Club's rule was to honour the ticket, he added.

Furthermore, said Counsel also said there was no evidence to show that the ticket was wrongfully obtained by Cheung nor that its holder was not entitled to payment.

Crown counsel Kevin Zervos, however, argued that when Cheung presented the winning ticket to the cashier, knowing that it was not his, he was clearly making a false representation.

He induced the cashier was induced by him to complete the transaction, but if she had she known Cheung hadwas acting dishonestly, she would not have handed him money.