HKSAR v. AGUILLON RUIZ JAIME AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. AGUILLON RUIZ JAIME AND ANOTHER

The court found the prosecution had established a prima facie connection between the seized cash and the trafficking offence and rejected the defendants' explanations as not credible based on the large quantity of drugs and packaging paraphernalia, the cash composition and amounts, defendants' admitted financial pressures and inconsistencies in evidence; accordingly the cash in exhibits P28-P38, P45 and P54-P56 was forfeitable under s56(1).

Citation
HKSAR v. AGUILLON RUIZ JAIME AND ANOTHER
Parties
Respondent: HKSAR; 1st Defendant: Aguillon Ruiz Jaime; 2nd Defendant: John Wilmer Gonzalez Pineda
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 November 2017
Case Number
HCCC365/2016
Procedural Posture
Criminal Forfeiture Under Dangerous Drugs Ordinance / Post Conviction Forfeiture Hearing and Decision (sentencing Occurred Prior to Forfeiture Hearing)
Outcome
Forfeiture ordered of specified cash exhibits to the Government under s56(1) Dangerous Drugs Ordinance
Legal Topics
Forfeiture, Dangerous Drugs Ordinance S56(1), Prima Facie Connection, Recovery of Proceeds
Source Language
EN
Criminal Law Drug Law Asset Forfeiture Forfeiture Dangerous Drugs Ordinance S56(1) Prima Facie Connection Recovery of Proceeds

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HKSAR

Respondent

Aguillon Ruiz Jaime

1st Defendant

John Wilmer Gonzalez Pineda

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Forfeiture Under Dangerous Drugs Ordinance / Post Conviction Forfeiture Hearing and Decision (sentencing Occurred Prior to Forfeiture Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a prima facie connection between the seized cash and the drug trafficking offence
  2. 2 Whether the seized money was 'received or possessed as the result or product' of the offence within s56(1)
  3. 3 Credibility of defendants' explanations and documentary evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the prosecution had established a prima facie connection between the seized cash and the trafficking offence and rejected the defendants' explanations as not credible based on the large quantity of drugs and packaging paraphernalia, the cash composition and amounts, defendants' admitted financial pressures and inconsistencies in evidence; accordingly the cash in exhibits P28-P38, P45 and P54-P56 was forfeitable under s56(1).

Court Disposition

Forfeiture ordered of specified cash exhibits to the Government under s56(1) Dangerous Drugs Ordinance

Orders

  • Exhibits P28 to P38, P45, and P54 to P56 (the cash found inside the paper box on the TV cabinet in the living room and the cash found on the persons of the 1st and 2nd Defendants) are forfeited to the Government