WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC. v. UNITED TOP PROPERTIES LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 252 & 384/2020 [2020] HKCFI 584 HCA 252/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 252 OF 2020 ______________ BETWEEN WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC. Plaintiff and UNITED TOP PROPERTIES LIMITED 1st Defendant YONG HO HING CO., LIMITED 2nd Defendant XT IMPORT AND EXPORT LIMITED 3rd Defendant KONGKONG GROUP CO., LIMITED 4th Defendant ______________ HCA 384/2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 384 OF 2020 ______________ BETWEEN WISMETTAC ASIAN FOODS, INC. Plaintiff and COMM-PASS HOLDINGS COMPANY LIMITED 1st Defendant LEADER HILL TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 2nd Defendant CHIEF ONE (HK) TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED 3rd Defendant (formerly known as CHIEF ONE TECHNOLOGY CO., LIMITED) GADLI LIMITED 4th Defendant JIACHEN INDUSTRY (HK) LIMITED 5th Defendant SILVER EXPRESS INVESTMENT LIMITED 6th Defendant ______________ (Heard together) Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers Dates of Hearing: 3 April 2020 Date of Decision: 3 April 2020 DECISION This is: the return date of the inter partes summons for the continuation of the ex parte proprietary and Mareva injunction granted on 9 March 2020 by Wilson Chan J against the defendants in HCA 252/2020, and the return date of the inter partes summons for the continuation of the ex parte proprietary and Mareva injunction granted on 20 March 2020 by G Lam J against the defendants in HCA 384/2020; and the Bankers’ Records Order granted by G Lam J in that same action also on that same day against 6 banks. I have read the affirmation of Yuki Mihata (“Mihata”) dated 16 December 2019. Mihata is a Sales Manager of the Plaintiff, which is a private company in California. According to Mihata, the Plaintiff has been the victim of an email and impersonation fraud. The Plaintiff has been deceived into remitting various sums in the total amount of US$10,295,000 to 2 companies. They are ZL Trade Limited (“ZL”) and Jin Hongsheng Trading Co (“JHS”). Arising from those facts, the Plaintiff has started HCA 2315/2019 against those 2 companies as the 1st tier recipients of those funds. An ex parte proprietary and Mareva injunction, subsequently continued on an inter partes basis, has been obtained against them. I have also read the affidavit of Dorothy Patricia Siron (“Siron”) of 9 March 2020. According to her, and according to information the Plaintiff obtained upon subsequent discovery and tracing exercise, part of the funds the Plaintiff remitted to JHS had been transferred to the 4 defendants in HCA 252/2020. It is the Plaintiff’s case hence that they are some of the 2nd tier recipients. Supported by the said affidavit of Siron, the Plaintiff obtained from Wilson Chan J the ex parte proprietary and Mareva injunction in HCA 252/2020 which the Plaintiff is now seeking to continue. I have read the further affidavit of Siron of 20 March 2020. According to her, and according to further information the Plaintiff obtained upon discovery and tracing, part of the funds the Plaintiff remitted to ZL, and further part of the funds the Plaintiff remitted to JHS which had not been transferred out to the defendants in HCA 252/2020 had been transferred, via some 2nd tier recipients (not the defendants in HCA 252/2020) to the 6 defendants in HCA 384/2020. It is the Plaintiff’s case hence that they are some of the 3rd tier recipients. Supported by the further affidavit of Siron, the Plaintiff obtained on an ex parte basis from G Lam J in HCA 384/2020 the order which the Plaintiff is now seeking to continue. I have read the relevant affirmations of service, namely the affirmations of Ling Emily Seepui of 23 and 27 March 2020. I am satisfied that all relevant documents have been served upon the defendants in both actions. I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has successfully demonstrated not just serious issues to be tried but also a good arguable case against the defendants. Risk of dissipation can clearly be inferred. Balance of convenience is clearly in favour of the granting and continuation of the injunction. In respect of D1 in HCA 384/2020, upon its undertaking as attached, the injunction against D1 is by consent not continued. In respect of all the Ds in HCA 252/2020, I grant the application as per the summons, save that the injunction is continued until further order or 3 months after the conclusion of the trial herein, whichever is earlier. In respect of HCA 384/2020, I continue the injunction against D2 to D6, and make the order as per the draft order before me as amended. (Keith Yeung) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Byron Chiu, instructed by Zhong Lun Law Firm, for the Plaintiff in HCA 252/2020 and HCA 384/2020 The 1st to 4th Defendants in HCA 252/2020 were not represented and did not appear Mr Simon Lau, of Lau & Ngan Solicitors LLP, for the 1st Defendant in HCA 384/2020 The 2nd to 6th Defendants in HCA 384/2020 were not represented and did not appear