Dishonest breach of trust by company directors was proscribed under section 405 of the Penal Code from inception. From this fundamental orientation departing from the English piecemeal treatment of embezzlement, false pretences and conspiracy to defraud, the article exposes differences in the way director's breach of trust is dealt with under section 405 and under the English statutory offence of embezzlement. Taking into account important backdrop perspectives which bear on the construction of section 409 as a punishability provision, it reaches conclusions opposite to the holding of the Court of Appeal in Lam Leng Hung (CA). One is that directors who commit dishonest breach of trust acting within the scope of authority fall to be punished more severely under the second agency-limb of section 409. Directors who knowingly act without authority in the company's name also do so but under the first limb. Finally, directors who misappropriate company property for personal use or benefit do not fall within section 409 and are punishable exclusively under section 406.

This article examines the evolution of legal education as it has moved through international, transnational, and now global paradigms. It explores these paradigms by reference to practice, pedagogy, and research. Internationalisation saw the world as an archipelago of jurisdictions, with a small number of lawyers involved in mediating disputes between jurisdictions or determining which jurisdiction applied; transnationalisation saw the world as a patchwork, with greater need for familiarity across jurisdictions and hence a growth in exchanges and collaborations; globalisation is now seeing the world as a web in more ways than one, with lawyers needing to be comfortable in multiple jurisdictions.

This article examines the changing meaning of property within the modern regulatory state. Government increasingly regulates in order to promote efficient competition within various fields of newly privatised industry. In many instances, this intervention leaves the operator-the nominal 'owner' of a privatised resource or utility-with only a residue of the rights conventionally associated with ownership. In particular, requirements of inter-operability and the compulsory unbundling of network facilities have the effect of exposing the operator's assets to compulsory hire by commercial competitors at non-market rates of revenue return. Where now does the 'reality of proprietorship' reside? Against this background the present article explores the tension between access and exclusion that lies at the heart of contemporary conceptualisations about property. It argues that state intervention has silently generated a novel species of property-a category of 'regulatory property'-which stands the traditional paradigm of private property on its head. An overriding control over specific kinds of vital resource or essential facility is confirmed as belonging to the public or citizenry, who,_x000D_ by force of consumer choice, can determine whether, how and by whom a resource may be exploited. The article goes on to demonstrate that this diffusion of entitlement among citizen-consumers has clear and direct antecedents in an older code of marketplace morality-an explicit common law doctrine of 'quasi-public trust'-that long ago emphasised the correlation of commercial privilege with social obligation. In the present context, the engrafting of some form of fiduciary responsibility on major aggregations of economic power has not only redefined our understanding of the phenomenon of property, but also reinforced important perceptions of individual and corporate citizenship. This development comprises a significant contribution to the modern democratisation of property.

Some 1.8 billion people today have a mobile phone and no bank account. Mobile money is the provision of financial services through mobile phones. It offers the substantial potential benefits of financial inclusion to poor people in poor nations. This article explores how trust law can be used to address the key risks these mobile money customers face: bankruptcy of the e-money provider, illiquidity and fraud. Prudential regulation is largely inapplicable because most providers are telecommunications companies and not banks. Trust law is a highly efficacious way to address this regulatory lacuna.