HKSAR v. KIU MEI LING AND OTHERS

HKSAR v. KIU MEI LING AND OTHERS

The court held that it was not functus officio and that s 73 CPO applied; bail monies paid into court for D2 and D3 (despite being provided by relatives) are treated as paid by the accused and are available to satisfy compensation orders. Applying the statutory tests and sentencing principles, the court declined to order compensation against D1 for lack of means and ordered D2 to pay HK$300,000 and D3 to pay HK$300,000 to Bonjour, to be paid out of their respective bail deposits, leaving any further claims to civil proceedings.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1172
Parties
Prosecution: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: KIU Mei-ling (喬美齡); 2nd Defendant: HA Ting-pong (夏定邦); 3rd Defendant: HA Wai-shing (夏偉成); Victim: Bonjour Cosmetic Wholesale Centre Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 April 2019
Case Number
HCCC348/2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Fraud and Money Laundering / Post Conviction/post Sentence Compensation Inquiry Pursuant to S 73 CPO
Outcome
Compensation orders made against 2nd and 3rd defendants in limited sums; no compensation order against 1st defendant; remainder of victim's claims left to civil jurisdiction
Legal Topics
Section 73 Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Compensation Orders From Bail Money, Functus Officio, Victim Restitution, Use of Bail Deposits
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Sentencing Compensation and Restitution Fraud Money Laundering Section 73 Criminal Procedure Ordinance Compensation Orders From Bail Money Functus Officio +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Prosecution

KIU Mei-ling (喬美齡)

1st Defendant

HA Ting-pong (夏定邦)

2nd Defendant

HA Wai-shing (夏偉成)

3rd Defendant

Bonjour Cosmetic Wholesale Centre Limited

Victim

Procedural Posture

Criminal Fraud and Money Laundering / Post Conviction/post Sentence Compensation Inquiry Pursuant to S 73 CPO

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court is functus officio after sentence and therefore unable to make compensation orders
  2. 2 Whether s 73 Criminal Procedure Ordinance applies to permit payment of compensation from bail monies paid into court even if provided by third parties
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to order compensation or leave the matter to civil proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it was not functus officio and that s 73 CPO applied; bail monies paid into court for D2 and D3 (despite being provided by relatives) are treated as paid by the accused and are available to satisfy compensation orders. Applying the statutory tests and sentencing principles, the court declined to order compensation against D1 for lack of means and ordered D2 to pay HK$300,000 and D3 to pay HK$300,000 to Bonjour, to be paid out of their respective bail deposits, leaving any further claims to civil proceedings.

Court Disposition

Compensation orders made against 2nd and 3rd defendants in limited sums; no compensation order against 1st defendant; remainder of victim's claims left to civil jurisdiction

Orders

  • Order that HA Ting-pong (2nd Defendant) pay HK$300000 to Bonjour Cosmetic Wholesale Centre Limited by payment out of his bail money held in court
  • Order that HA Wai-shing (3rd Defendant) pay HK$300000 to Bonjour Cosmetic Wholesale Centre Limited by payment out of his bail money held in court (HK$150000 in respect of each of Counts 4 and 5)