HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND OTHERS

On the evidence and the jury verdict the $52,000 used to purchase the Rolex watch were proceeds derived from the sale of stolen goods; accordingly the watch came into possession in connection with the offence under section 102(1)(a) and the person entitled to the monies and the watch is the victim Yang Gengjie, so the court ordered delivery of the watch to Yang Gengjie under section 102(2)(a).

Citation
HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND OTHERS
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: Wong Ka-fai; 2nd Defendant: Chen Long-yin; 3rd Defendant: Lau Chung-kee
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 July 2015
Case Number
HCCC266/2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Handling Stolen Goods / Post Conviction Disposal of Exhibits
Outcome
Order made that the Rolex watch (Items 241 and 242) be delivered to victim Yang Gengjie under section 102(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance Cap 227.
Legal Topics
Disposal of Exhibits, Forfeiture, Proceeds of Crime, Criminal Procedure Ordinance S102
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Property Law Procedural Law Evidence Disposal of Exhibits Forfeiture Proceeds of Crime Criminal Procedure Ordinance S102

Case Brief

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

Wong Ka-fai

1st Defendant

Chen Long-yin

2nd Defendant

Lau Chung-kee

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Handling Stolen Goods / Post Conviction Disposal of Exhibits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 102(1)(b) or (c) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance applies to a Rolex watch purchased with alleged proceeds of crime
  2. 2 Whether property purchased with proceeds of crime is subject to forfeiture or delivery under section 102
  3. 3 Who is entitled to delivery of property purchased with proceeds of crime

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence and the jury verdict the $52,000 used to purchase the Rolex watch were proceeds derived from the sale of stolen goods; accordingly the watch came into possession in connection with the offence under section 102(1)(a) and the person entitled to the monies and the watch is the victim Yang Gengjie, so the court ordered delivery of the watch to Yang Gengjie under section 102(2)(a).

Court Disposition

Order made that the Rolex watch (Items 241 and 242) be delivered to victim Yang Gengjie under section 102(2)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance Cap 227.

Orders

  • The Rolex watch (Items 241 and 242) is to be delivered to Yang Gengjie pursuant to section 102(2)(a) of Cap 227.