Joseph Lee

Call 2008 (Hong Kong)

LANGUAGES

English, Cantonese, Mandarin (Basic)

CONTACT

T: +852 2840 1130
E: joseph.lee@parksidechambers.com.hk

Secretary: Ms. Juliana Chan
E: juliana.chan@parksidechambers.com.hk

Profile

Joseph accepts instructions in predominantly criminal matters, mainly in his own right and at times as a led junior. He has appeared as an advocate in all levels of the criminal appellate courts in Hong Kong.

Joseph regularly defends his clients against offences ranging from white collar crime, complex commercial fraud, offences involving violence, to road traffic and departmental summonses. Such trials often include challenges to the admissibility of declarations made against interest.

Prior to the charge stage, Joseph also advises corporations and individuals under investigation on potential criminal liabilities.

Joseph was appointed as Deputy Magistrate in 2016. He is a contributing editor of Archbold Hong Kong and a member of the HKBA’s Criminal Law & Procedure Committee.

In addition, Joseph accepts instructions in matrimonial matters, where he strives to work with his clients to achieve the right result.

– “Leading” Junior Counsel, Doyles Guide 2020 (Leading Criminal Law Barristers – Hong Kong)

– “Recommended” Junior Counsel, Doyles Guide 2019 (Leading Criminal Law Barristers – Hong Kong)

Practice Areas

General Civil Litigation
General Criminal Litigation
Commercial Law
Family Law
White-Collar Crime
Fraud
Money Laundering
Bribery and Corruption
Industrial Summonses
  • Member of the Criminal Law & Procedure Committee, Hong Kong Bar Association (2013 – 2018, 2020)
  • Deputy Magistrate (2016)
  • Contributing Editor, Archbold Hong Kong (2016 – 2020)
  • Speaker, Criminal Law Conference (2017)

White-Collar Crime and Commercial Fraud – Appeals

  • HKSAR v Wong Wai Kwong David (2015) 18 HKCFAR 29: acted for the appellant in successfully overturning his conviction for conspiring to commit a money laundering offence. The Court of Final Appeal held that the money laundering offence charged against the appellant had not been established.
  • HKSAR v Ha But Yee, FAMC41/2016: acted for the applicant in seeking leave to appeal in the Court of Final Appeal against an order of re-trial, where the applicant was alleged to have offered bribes totalling $24.8million to a chief trader of derivative warrants of an international bank. (Led by Mr. Andrew Bruce S.C.)
  • HKSAR v Shah Tahir Hussain, FAMC23/2013 (CFA) & [2013] 3 HKLRD 18 (CA): acted for the applicant, who was the 2nd defendant in the Lily Chiang trial, for leave to appeal in the Court of Final Appeal and the appeal in the Court of Appeal.
  • HKSAR v Chan Chi Cheung & Others [2016] 1 HKLRD 1433: acted for the 1st and 3rd appellants in a successful appeal against conviction for accepting advantage as agents. (Led by Mr. Robert Lee S.C.) (Chinese Judgment)

White-Collar Crime and Commercial Fraud – Selected Cases

High Court

  • HKSAR v Ma & Others: acted for the 3rd to 5th defendants in a trial in the High Court, who were all acquitted by the jury for all the counts they faced, involving bribes to a chief trader of derivative warrants of an international bank. (Led by Mr. Selwyn Yu S.C.)

District Court

  • HKSAR v Chan: acted for a district councillor who was acquitted of 4 counts of fraud involving the use of his District Council staff for the purposes of his private company. (With Mr. Lawrence Hui)
  • HKSAR v Lau: acted for a customer relationship manager of a prominent bank, who faced 7 charges of accepting an advantage from his banking client. The defendant was acquitted of all the charges he faced, as the court found that the prosecution was unable to prove the corrupt intent. (Led by Mr. Selwyn Yu S.C.)
  • HKSAR v Mak & Others: acted for the 1st defendant, who pleaded guilty to a charge of conspiracy to defraud, in relation to the concrete testing procedure of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, in which the CEDD suffered losses of over HK$30 million.
  • HKSAR v Yu & Others: acted for the defendant, who faced a Money Laundering charge (Dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence). The Judge accepted the defendant’s explanation as possibly true and she was acquitted accordingly.

Magistrates’ Courts

  • HKSAR v Chan: acted for the defendant, who faced a charge of fraud against her own company. The court disbelieved the main prosecution witness and found that the prosecution failed to prove that the defendant had to necessary criminal intent, and acquitted her.
  • HKSAR v Choi: acted for the defendant who was acquitted of a charge of fraud and a charge of theft, in relation to the mortgage loan services provided by her for an overseas property.
  • HKSAR v Wong: acted for the defendant, who was charged with an offence under Section 9(3) of the POBO. The court wholly disbelieved the evidence of the key witness of the prosecution and acquitted the defendant, taking the view that the defence contention that the documents were genuine could be true.

General Criminal Litigation – Appeals

  • HKSAR v Shum Wai Kee (2019) 22 HKCFAR 11, [2019] HKCFA 2: acted for the appellant, who was convicted of a charge of making a false declaration to obtain registration for carrying on a vocation. The appeal turned on the mental element of the offence under section 37(a) of the Crimes Ordinance, and the meaning of the legal advice obtained by the appellant. The Court of Final Appeal unanimously allowed the appeal and quashed the conviction. (Led by Mr. Robert Pang S.C.)
  • HKSAR v Chan Chi Tao [2019] HKCFA 49: acted for the applicant to seek leave to appeal in the Court of Final Appeal against 3 convictions of indecent assault.
  • HKSAR v Lam Ping Kwong, CACC263/2015: acted for the appellant, who was convicted of Causing Death by Dangerous Driving. The conviction was successfully set aside on appeal and a conviction of careless driving substituted. (Chinese Judgment)
  • Secretary for Justice v Kan Ping Chee [2013] 5 HKLRD 362: acted for the respondent, a former champion horse racing trainer, for sentencing review in the Court of Appeal on a charge of engaging in corrupt conduct at an election. (Led by Mr. Graham Harris S.C.)
  • HKSAR v Lau Wai Sun [2020] HKCFI 1880: acted for the appellant, whose indecent assault conviction was successfully overturned on appeal, due to the trial magistrate’s erroneous treatment of the evidence of the witnesses. (Chinese Judgment)
  • HKSAR v Lam Chi Ho [2019] HKCFI 1733: acted for the appellant, who was convicted of common assault. His conviction was quashed on appeal as the magistrate erred in her treatment of the evidence of the independent witness. (Chinese Judgment)
  • HKSAR v Bank of East Asia Limited, HCMA74/2017: acted for the appellant bank on appeal against a forfeiture order. (Chinese Judgment)
  • HKSAR v Ng Tsz Chun, HCMA516/2015: acted for the appellant, whose conviction was quashed on appeal due to the magistrate having made critical errors in his handling of the voluntariness of the record of interview adduced at trial. (Chinese Judgment)

General Criminal Litigation – Selected Cases

High Court

  • HKSAR v Gonzalez: acted for the defendant, who faced a count of rape of his ex-wife. He was acquitted by the jury by a majority. (With the late Mr. Kevin Egan)
  • HKSAR v Lam: acted for the defendant, who faced a count of trafficking in a dangerous drug. The defendant’s confession to the Customs and Excise officer was successfully excluded from the evidence. The Judge, having been satisfied that the chain of exhibits tendered by the C&E has also been broken, directed the jury to acquit the defendant.

District Court

  • HKSAR v Cheung: acted for the defendant who was charged with wounding with intent. He was acquitted on the first day of the trial.
  • HKSAR v Law: acted for the defendant, who was acquitted of a charge of causing death by dangerous driving, where the court substituted a conviction of careless driving instead.

Magistrates’ Courts

  • HKSAR v Chau: acted for the defendant, who faced a charge of engaging in a commercial practice that is a misleading omission. Her confession was successfully excluded from the evidence at the end of the prosecution case, and she was acquitted after trial.
  • HKSAR v Lu: acted for the defendant, who was charged with failing to provide specimen of blood for laboratory test with alcohol concentration likely to exceed prescribed limit. Accepting the defence submissions, the court ruled that there was no case for the defendant to answer due to the critical errors made by the officer in charge of the procedure, and the defendant was acquitted.
  • HKSAR v Mao: acted for the defendant, who was charged with being the employer of a person not lawfully employable. Her confession to the immigration authorities was successfully excluded from the evidence at the end of the prosecution case, and the court ruled that there was no case for the defendant to answer, and ordered her acquittal.
  • HKSAR v Xu: acted for the defendant, who was charged with possession of a forged identity card and possession of a false instrument. The court ruled that there was no case for the defendant to answer, and ordered her acquittal. (Led by Mr. Joseph Tse S.C.)
Categories:
Clients:
Tags: