Dow Jones Convicted in Hong Kong Over Union Role and Dismissal of Former Reporter
A Hong Kong court convicted Dow Jones of wilfully preventing Selina Cheng from becoming a trade union officer and unlawfully terminating her employment, with a maximum fine of HK$100,000 ($12,750) possible.
3 reports on this incident · first at Sep 10, 2026, 3:12 a.m. ET
This case is not concluded. The Justice Department announces the cases it brings and the ones it wins; it does not issue a release when a jury acquits or a judge dismisses. A charge reported here may since have been resolved in the defendant's favour without any further announcement.
We last searched for new coverage of this at Sep 10, 2026, 3:39 a.m. ET — checked 2h ago.
Earlier reports
Sep 10, 2026, 3:16 a.m. ET
Hong Kong Court Convicts Dow Jones Over Union Role and Dismissal of Former Reporter
A Hong Kong court has convicted Dow Jones on charges that it wilfully prevented Selina Cheng from exercising her right under the city's Trade Unions Ordinance to become an officer of a registered trade union in June 2024, and that it unlawfully terminated her employment contract on July 17, 2024, wdez.com reported. The conviction was announced on September 10, 2026.
The government alleged that Dow Jones wilfully prevented Cheng from exercising that right in June 2024 and unlawfully terminated her employment contract on July 17, 2024, according to wdez.com. The statutory maximum for the offence is a fine of HK$100,000 ($12,750), wdez.com reported.
The proceeding has reached the conviction stage. A conviction is not a sentence, and no sentence has been reported.
Sep 10, 2026, 3:12 a.m. ETFirst report
Hong Kong court convicts Dow Jones over union role and dismissal of former reporter
A Hong Kong court has convicted Dow Jones of wilfully preventing Selina Cheng from exercising her right, under the city's Trade Unions Ordinance, to become an officer of a registered trade union in June 2024, and of unlawfully terminating her employment contract on July 17, 2024, wdez.com reported on September 10, 2026.
The government alleged that Dow Jones wilfully prevented Cheng from exercising that right in June 2024 and unlawfully terminated her employment contract on July 17, 2024, according to wdez.com. The proceeding has reached the conviction stage, the outlet reported.
The statutory maximum for the offence is a fine of HK$100,000 ($12,750), wdez.com reported.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 07:16current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 07:12current
First published.
- Version 110 Sept 2026, 07:22current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.