香港特別行政區 訴 梁嘉湧

香港特別行政區 訴 梁嘉湧

On the undisputed documentary record (bank statements showing multiple transfers totalling HK$2.76 million into defendant's personal account with rapid onward transfers/withdrawals, low historical account balances, defendant as sole authorized signer) combined with his selective responses at cautioned interviews and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] HKDC 1500
Parties
Prosecution: 香港特別行政區; Third Defendant: 梁嘉湧
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 August 2025
Case Number
DCCC814/2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Money Laundering (dealing With Proceeds of Indictable Offence) / Costs Application Under Cap.492 S.4 After Prosecution Withdrew Charges
Outcome
Application for costs refused
Legal Topics
Costs on Withdrawal of Charges, Right to Silence and Adverse Inference, Self Suspicion, Relevance and Admissibility of Tax Records, Bank Record Analysis, Withdrawal for Inability to Call Witness
Source Language
ch
Criminal Law Procedure Asset Recovery Evidence Law Tax Law Costs on Withdrawal of Charges Right to Silence and Adverse Inference Self Suspicion +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

香港特別行政區

Prosecution

梁嘉湧

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Money Laundering (dealing With Proceeds of Indictable Offence) / Costs Application Under Cap.492 S.4 After Prosecution Withdrew Charges

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether costs should be awarded under Cap.492 s.4 after charges withdrawn
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's conduct amounted to 'self‑suspicion' to justify denial of costs
  3. 3 Whether selective answers at cautioned interviews permit adverse inference in costs exercise

Ratio Decidendi

On the undisputed documentary record (bank statements showing multiple transfers totalling HK$2.76 million into defendant's personal account with rapid onward transfers/withdrawals, low historical account balances, defendant as sole authorized signer) combined with his selective responses at cautioned interviews and lack of timely corroborating documentation, the defendant's conduct amounted to 'self‑suspicion' and misled the prosecution into believing their case was stronger than in reality; therefore the court exercised its discretion to refuse the costs application under Cap.492 s.4.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused

Orders

  • The third defendant's application for costs under Cap.492 s.4 is dismissed.