Re LAW KIN MAN

Re LAW KIN MAN

The court held that the Ordinance read with the 1991 Designation Order permits registration of external confiscation orders of designated countries, including orders affecting property (in rem), and that common law conflict rules do not prevent registration under the statutory scheme; although the New York forfeiture orders lacked jurisdiction over the res and were impeachable, the applicant's long delay, conduct and prejudice to alternative remedies meant the court would not exercise its discretion to set aside the registration; application to amend summons and to discharge registration dismissed.

Citation
Re LAW KIN MAN
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Respondent 1: Law Kin Man; Respondent (representing Crown): Attorney General; Fourth Respondent (director): Lo Chak-man; Sixth Respondent (director): Tsoi Sau-ngai
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
10 October 1994
Case Number
HCMP1711/1991
Procedural Posture
Application to Discharge Registration of Foreign Forfeiture Orders Under Drug Trafficking (recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance / Hearing on Summons to Discharge Registration; Judgment on Application Delivered
Outcome
Application to discharge the registration dismissed; application to amend summons refused
Legal Topics
Registration of External Confiscation Orders, Jurisdiction of Foreign in Rem Orders, Retrospectivity of Statutory Schemes, Non Disclosure to Court, Discretion to Set Aside Registration, Money Laundering
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Asset Forfeiture and Recovery Conflict of Laws (foreign Judgments) Statutory Interpretation Civil Procedure Registration of External Confiscation Orders Jurisdiction of Foreign in Rem Orders Retrospectivity of Statutory Schemes +3 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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Law Kin Man

Respondent 1

Attorney General

Respondent (representing Crown)

Lo Chak-man

Fourth Respondent (director)

Tsoi Sau-ngai

Sixth Respondent (director)

Procedural Posture

Application to Discharge Registration of Foreign Forfeiture Orders Under Drug Trafficking (recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance / Hearing on Summons to Discharge Registration; Judgment on Application Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Hong Kong courts have jurisdiction to register and enforce foreign in rem forfeiture orders
  2. 2 Whether registration/enforcement would give retrospective effect beyond the Ordinance
  3. 3 Whether the foreign forfeiture orders were made without jurisdiction and therefore impeachable

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Ordinance read with the 1991 Designation Order permits registration of external confiscation orders of designated countries, including orders affecting property (in rem), and that common law conflict rules do not prevent registration under the statutory scheme; although the New York forfeiture orders lacked jurisdiction over the res and were impeachable, the applicant's long delay, conduct and prejudice to alternative remedies meant the court would not exercise its discretion to set aside the registration; application to amend summons and to discharge registration dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to discharge the registration dismissed; application to amend summons refused

Orders

  • Application to discharge judge's registration dismissed
  • Application to amend the summons refused