HKSAR v. CHING WAI-LAN

HKSAR v. CHING WAI-LAN

The court ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case that both sums ($3,164.10 found in the handbag and $11,000 found in the bedside drawer) were possessed as a result of or product of drug trafficking under s56(1)(a)/(b); the defendant subsequently conceded the $3,164.10, and on the defendant's evidence the court accepted on the balance of probabilities that part of the $11,000 was attributable to rent payments from a flatmate, affecting the question of forfeiture for that sum.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 1819
Parties
Prosecution: Prosecution
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 August 2018
Case Number
HCCC236/2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Confiscation Hearing
Outcome
Court found prima facie evidence for forfeiture of both sums under s56(1)(a)/(b); defendant conceded forfeiture of $3,164.10; court accepted defendant's account on balance of probabilities that a portion of the $11,000 represented rent payments from a flatmate.
Legal Topics
Drug Trafficking, Forfeiture Under Dangerous Drugs Ordinance, Prima Facie Evidence, Burden of Proof
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Drugs Law Asset Forfeiture Drug Trafficking Forfeiture Under Dangerous Drugs Ordinance Prima Facie Evidence Burden of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prosecution

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Confiscation Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the two sums of money ($3,164.10 and $11,000) are forfeitable under section 56(1)(a) or (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution has established a prima facie case for forfeiture
  3. 3 Whether the defendant has rebutted the presumption on the balance of probabilities

Ratio Decidendi

The court ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case that both sums ($3,164.10 found in the handbag and $11,000 found in the bedside drawer) were possessed as a result of or product of drug trafficking under s56(1)(a)/(b); the defendant subsequently conceded the $3,164.10, and on the defendant's evidence the court accepted on the balance of probabilities that part of the $11,000 was attributable to rent payments from a flatmate, affecting the question of forfeiture for that sum.

Court Disposition

Court found prima facie evidence for forfeiture of both sums under s56(1)(a)/(b); defendant conceded forfeiture of $3,164.10; court accepted defendant's account on balance of probabilities that a portion of the $11,000 represented rent payments from a flatmate.

Orders

  • Declared there was prima facie evidence to forfeit $3,164.10 and $11,000 under s56(1)(a)/(b) of Cap 134
  • Defendant conceded forfeiture of $3,164.10 (no further resistance)