Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 梁國雄

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC17/2025

The judge correctly treated the forfeiture application as a civil proceeding, found sufficient prima facie evidence linking the cash to the drug offence (packaging, drug quantity/value, appellant's conduct and possessions), and properly rejected inconsistent, unsworn explanations by the appellant; therefore the forfeiture order was properly made and the leave application to appeal that order is unarguable.

Source excerpt

• Dangerous drugs
• Drug trafficking
• Forfeiture of property
• Standard of proof in civil forfeiture
• Mitigation and plea

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. CELESTIN HENSLEY FRANCO

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCCC411/2024

The court ordered forfeiture of cash found on a drug courier, holding it was used in connection with trafficking under section 56(1) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance.

• Forfeiture under dangerous drugs ordinance s56
• Drug trafficking
• Burden of proof on balance of probabilities
• Prima facie case
• Use of funds to facilitate travel
• Drug-trafficking

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 趙俊名 ANTHONY

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCC424/2021

The court found that the prosecution had adduced sufficient prima facie evidence (timing of cheque encashment, seizure location, defendant's admissions and absence of legitimate records) to establish on a relative likelihood that the HK$220,000 was criminal proceeds, shifting the evidential burden to the putative owner; the owner failed to give a credible, reliable explanation or corroborative evidence to rebut the inference, so the court ordered forfeiture under s102 CPRO.

Source excerpt

• Proceeds of crime
• Forfeiture under s102 cpro
• Burden of proof
• Admissibility of prior convictions and hearsay
• Judicial discretion

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 趙玉華

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCCC13/2024

Prosecution discharged its civil burden by adducing evidence (admissions, discovery of cash and drug paraphernalia) that, on the balance of probabilities, connected the seized cash and items to drug trafficking; the defence evidence was inconsistent and not credible, failing to rebut the prima facie case, therefore the court ordered forfeiture of exhibits P6, P7, P20, P22 and P21 under DDO s56(1).

Source excerpt

• Drug trafficking
• Forfeiture under dangerous drugs ordinance s56(1)
• Standard of proof in forfeiture proceedings

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 罗梅先及另一人

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA400/2022

Police were obstructed entering the premises so s19(3) presumption applied; appellants failed to adduce rebuttal evidence; once the court was satisfied under s26 that the money was used for or in connection with illegal gambling the magistrate was obliged to order forfeiture; on rehearing the High Court found no error and upheld the forfeiture orders and fines.

Source excerpt

• Illegal gambling
• Forfeiture orders
• Presumption under gambling ordinance s19(3)
• Gambling ordinance s26

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. NGAI TAI MING

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC239/2019

The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal against forfeiture orders made after a drug trafficking conviction, upholding the cash forfeiture and return of the vehicle to the bank.

• Trafficking in dangerous drugs
• Forfeiture of property
• Third party ownership/hire purchase
• Credibility assessment
• Drug-trafficking
• Forfeiture

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. JAVIER DUVAN AMADO PEREZ

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC184/2020

The Court of Appeal refused an extension of time to seek leave to appeal against a HK$24,000 forfeiture order, finding no credible explanation and no merit in the proposed appeal.

• Sentencing
• Forfeiture under dangerous drugs ordinance
• Extension of time to file appeal
• Leave to appeal
• Criminal-appeal
• Drug-offences

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. SHAKEEL AHMED

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC61/2017

Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal conviction only on the ground of inadequate directions about ‘target’ evidence, but refused leave to appeal sentence out of time.

• Trafficking in dangerous drugs
• Jury directions
• Target evidence/acting on information
• Leave to appeal out of time
• Forfeiture of property
• Form 8 offender enhancement

Read case analysis

HKSAR v. NGAI TAI MING

Court

District Court

Case number

DCCC807/2018

The District Court ordered forfeiture of most cash seized in a drug case, but returned the car and key to the hire-purchase bank on conditional terms.

• Dangerous drugs ordinance s56
• Forfeiture of instrumentalities and proceeds
• Hire purchase ownership vs forfeiture
• Credibility of witnesses
• Dangerous-drugs-ordinance
• Forfeiture

Read case analysis

香港特別行政區 訴 安傑威

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC374/2017

Despite procedural deficiencies in how the trial judge handled the forfeiture hearing and the failure to spell out reasons, the court found the agreed facts (suspicious conduct at night, possession of substantial quantity of drugs, multiple mobile phones and HK$44,352.90) furnished a prima facie link under s56 DDO; the prosecution met its civil burden and the appellant neither effectively opposed the forfeiture nor adduced evidence to rebut the prima facie case, so the forfeiture order for HK$44,352.90 was properly made and is upheld.

Source excerpt

• Dangerous drugs ordinance s56
• Forfeiture procedure
• Burden and standard of proof
• Fair hearing and judicial reasoning

Read case analysis