Page:Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (Cap. 593).pdf/45

UNSOLICITED ELECTRONIC MESSAGES ORDINANCE :(a) in the course of his employment; or
 * (b) in accordance with instructions given to him by or on behalf of his employer in the course of his employment.

(5) Subsection (4) does not apply to an employee who, at the time the act was done or the conduct was engaged in, was in a position to make or influence a decision regarding that act or conduct.

60. Liability of directors, partners, etc.

(1) Where an organization has done any act or engaged in any conduct constituting an offence under this Ordinance, the following person shall, unless there is evidence showing that he did not authorize the act to be done or the conduct to be engaged in, be presumed also to have done the act or to have engaged in the conduct—
 * (a) in the case of a Hong Kong company or other company or body corporate (“the company”)—
 * (i) any director of the company who, at the time the act was done or the conduct was engaged in, was responsible for the internal management of the company; or
 * (ii) if there was no such director, any person who, at the time the act was done or the conduct was engaged in, was responsible under the immediate authority of the directors of the company for the internal management of the company;
 * (b) in the case of a partnership—
 * (i) any partner in the partnership who, at the time the act was done or the conduct was engaged in, was responsible for the internal management of the partnership; or
 * (ii) if there was no such partner, any person who, at the time the act was done or the conduct was engaged in, was responsible under the immediate authority of the partners in the partnership for the internal management of the partnership; and
 * (c) in the case of any other organization, any officer of the organization or other person who, at the time the act was done or the conduct was engaged in, was responsible for the internal management of the organization.

(2) A person charged with an offence under this Ordinance by virtue of subsection (1) is taken not to have done the act in question or not to have engaged in the conduct in question if—
 * (a) sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue that he did not authorize the act to be done or the conduct to be engaged in; and
 * (b) the contrary is not proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.