Su Tung.THE CASE MAP
Search finds matching words. A case map follows legal relationships.
See how later judgments cite, follow, apply or distinguish an authority — and inspect the passage behind every proposed link.
Before relying on an authority in advice or submissions
A later CFA judgment declined to follow Li Kwok Cheung. Which later CFA judgments still cited it, and what did each say?
What this evaluated example found
The case map connected 3 candidate judgments. The direct keyword baseline found 1.
Candidate judgments connected
- FACC10/2021
- FACC17/2018
- FACC6/2021
What the case map does
The map joins the extracted adverse-treatment edge to later citation edges, orders the path, and returns the passage for every step.
Why direct keyword search leaves work
A name search finds mentions. It does not start from the adverse treatment, apply its date, and assemble the later citations.
Machine-extracted research leads, not a citator. Verify the passages and full judgments before relying on a classification.
Inspect the passagesTHE EVIDENCE
Inspect the passages behind the links
Read the passage behind every proposed link. These quotes are a dated snapshot: what evaluation shard fa-20260813 held when it was measured on 18 August 2026. Nothing on this page is read live from a database.
FACC1/2015 declined to follow it on 11 July 2016. These judgments cited it afterwards.
How this example was tested
Fourteen graph-shaped questions were frozen before running the direct keyword baseline. The test shows that the database can perform these joins; it does not establish that every extracted treatment is legally correct.
The frozen test covered 2,745 CFA judgments and 119 quote-backed links.
Exact frozen evaluation question: Which later CFA judgments continued to cite HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George & Ors after a CFA judgment declined to follow it?
Independent legal review is pending. Treat this path as a lead to verify, not a statement of legal effect.
- Judgments5
- The answer
- What the question turns on
- declines to follow × 1
- cites × 3
5 things and 4 connections shown.
What the question turns on
The step every answer shares
香港特別行政區 訴 SALIM, MAJED declines to follow HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George & Ors
“本院拒絕將該項交易視為受第25(1)條涵蓋，因為否則便會涉及將無須屬於被告人知道或有合理理由相信是有問題得益的付款視為構成該罪行。”
part of the reasoning
Research leads from the graph3 judgments
香港特別行政區 訴 HARJANI HARESH MURLIDHAR cites HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George & Ors
“第二宗獲考慮[34]的案件是HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George[35]。”
香港特別行政區 訴 梁天琦及另二人 cites HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George & Ors
“見 HKSAR v Cheung Kwun Yin (2009) 12 HKCFAR 568 第12-14段；HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George (2014) 17 HKCFAR 319 第37段；以及最近 Secretary for Justice v Leung Kwok Hung [2021] HKCFA 32，第25段。”
HKSAR v. CHAN KAM CHING cites HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George & Ors
“HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George[29]was an exceptional case where the accused was prosecuted for money laundering in respect of funds which were known from the outset to be “clean”, there having been “no suggestion that [such funds] derived from the commission of an indictable offence”,[30] the prosecution taking the view that it was enough if the funds were used “in connection with” the commission of such an offence.”
part of the reasoning
A later citation is a research lead, not a finding that the case is bad law. Both quotes are here; the reading is still yours.
These treatment labels are machine-extracted and await independent legal review. Verify the passage and the full judgment before relying on them.
What a keyword search found
Searching the name, after that date
It missed 香港特別行政區 訴 HARJANI HARESH MURLIDHAR and 香港特別行政區 訴 梁天琦及另二人.