VOLUME  XV  No. 159 M O N D A Y August 26, 2013



One has to admire Ms Poon Wai (潘慰), the Chairperson of Ajisen (China) Holdings Ltd [味千(中國)控股有限公司] (Code: 538, Main Board, The Stock Exchange of Hongkong Ltd) for her forgiving nature in employing a known felon in a very high position in the publicly listed company that she controls. 

TARGET (泰達財經) is referring to the hiring of Mr Lau Si Sing (劉士盛) whose appointment by Ajisen (China) as Chief Operating Officer was confirmed on August 1, 2013. 

Mr Lau Si Sing was, originally imprisoned in the Hongkong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in April of 2009 for a total of four years and five months after being found guilty of the felonious acts of ‘conspiring that he, as an agent, accept advantages contrary to section 9(1)(b) of the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance (“the Charge 1 offence”) and of an offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice contrary to common law ...’. (Criminal Appeal Number CACC 174 of 2009) 

The Criminal Appeals Court Justices determined in their written judgement, inter alia: 

The prosecution case at trial was that the applicant (Mr Lau Si Sing) while the managing director of McDonald’s (Hong Kong) which operated a well known chain of restaurants in this city, solicited and received from one of the foodstuff suppliers to his company a total of $2,325,000 over a period of nearly 2 years in return for favouring the supplier with McDonald’s business …’.


‘While they [Mr Lau Si Sing and a prosecution witness (PW1) who paid the illicit monies to Mr Lau Si Sing] were detained in a room at the Macau Ferry Terminal the applicant managed to talk to PW1 and urged him to tell the ICAC officers that the bribe monies paid by PW1 were in fact investment sums which were PW1’s share of a joint investment that they were undertaking in the Mainland …’.


 ‘The applicant throughout that 2 year period was the managing director of McDonald’s in Hong Kong and his corrupt activities represented a breach of trust of very considerable proportions. The totality of bribe monies paid to the applicant was substantial, and we note also that the scheme of corruption showed some sophistication in that there were arrangements made by the applicant that the corrupt monies were to be paid to him through bank accounts of third parties …’.


‘We bear in mind that such conspiracies are a pernicious impediment to the functioning of justice and in the normal course should themselves attract a deterrent sentence …’.


‘The applicant however relies also upon the fact that he is the sole breadwinner for his family and that as a consequence of his conviction his reputation and future job prospects have been seriously damaged so as to impact upon his ability to support his family … brought about by the applicant’s own actions… The fact that the applicant has fallen from his privileged place in society as a result of his breach of trust cannot be called in aid …


‘That is a totality of sentence of 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.’  

He was released from prison after serving about two years of his sentence in the middle of 2011. 

The Other Legal Actions 




While TARGET makes every attempt to ensure accuracy of all data published, 
TARGET cannot be held responsible for any errors and/or omissions.




If readers feel that they would like to voice their opinions about that which they have read in TARGET, please feel free to e-mail your views to editor@targetnewspapers.com. TARGET does not guarantee to publish readers' views, but reserves the right so to do subject to the laws of libel.