INTERUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS

INTERUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS

Sections 25 and 25A(2)(a) are not unconstitutional: s25 is an independent criminal offence and does not empower deprivation; s25A(2)(a) merely creates a defence to dealing after disclosure and does not operate as a statutory freezing power; practical safeguards exist (internal guidelines, review procedures, s29 compensation, civil remedies and availability of judicial review) and Articles 6 and 105 are not engaged.

Citation
INTERUSH LTD AND ANOTHER v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Applicant: INTERUSH LIMITED; 2nd Applicant: INTERUSH (SINGAPORE) PTE LIMITED; 1st Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE; 2nd Respondent: THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE; 3rd Respondent: MAK WING YIP CYRIL, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 August 2015
Case Number
HCAL167/2014
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (constitutional Challenge to OSCO Provisions) / Judgment on Judicial Review Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, No Consent Regime, Suspension of Bank Accounts, Judicial Review, Compensation, Restraint Orders
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Criminal Law Administrative Law Banking and Financial Regulation Proceeds of Crime No Consent Regime Suspension of Bank Accounts Judicial Review +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INTERUSH LIMITED

1st Applicant

INTERUSH (SINGAPORE) PTE LIMITED

2nd Applicant

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

1st Respondent

THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS & EXCISE

2nd Respondent

MAK WING YIP CYRIL, SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

3rd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (constitutional Challenge to OSCO Provisions) / Judgment on Judicial Review Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sections 25 and 25A of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap 455) are unconstitutional as infringing Articles 6 and 105 of the Basic Law and related rights
  2. 2 Whether s25A(2)(a) operates as a power to freeze property indefinitely without judicial oversight or compensation
  3. 3 Whether the specific refusal of consent in this case was unlawful, unreasonable or Wednesbury irrational

Ratio Decidendi

Sections 25 and 25A(2)(a) are not unconstitutional: s25 is an independent criminal offence and does not empower deprivation; s25A(2)(a) merely creates a defence to dealing after disclosure and does not operate as a statutory freezing power; practical safeguards exist (internal guidelines, review procedures, s29 compensation, civil remedies and availability of judicial review) and Articles 6 and 105 are not engaged.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Order nisi that costs of this application be to the respondents; order to become absolute 14 days from date of judgment unless varied by summons