Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Abandoned property

Legal area

Court

15 Aug 2022

RE RHB SECURITIES HONG KONG LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2645
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2310/2020

The applicants had demonstrated they had exercised all reasonable endeavours to trace and contact clients and therefore the court ordered payment into court of unclaimed and unidentified cash, deposits and securities with specific procedures for registration, sale where certificates cannot be obtained, and payment of dividends into court; abandoned cash and securities were not ordered into court and were adjourned sine die to avoid leaving assets indefinitely in court.
5 Jun 2012

HKSAR v. PAINI

Citation

HKSAR v. PAINI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA72/2012

The Magistrate was entitled to disbelieve the appellant's account on the evidence as a whole; the appellant's answers in cross-examination did not render the conviction unsafe; any minor misstatement by the Magistrate was immaterial to the safety of the conviction, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
15 May 2012

HKSAR v. CHAU MAN YING

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAU MAN YING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC439/2011

The appeal is allowed because, on the facts (vacant derelict block, opportunistic low-value taking), the two-year sentence was excessive and a materially lower sentence was warranted; the two-year sentence is set aside and substituted with a sentence permitting the appellant's immediate release given time already spent in custody.
13 Jan 2012

香港特別行政區訴尹子謙

Citation

香港特別行政區訴尹子謙
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA383/2011

Conviction unsafe because prosecution failed to prove the goods were not abandoned and relied on un‑foreshadowed re‑examination evidence about store practice without foundation; reasonable doubt remained therefore appeal allowed and conviction quashed.
22 Jun 2005

HKSAR v. TSE SHING CHUN

Citation

HKSAR v. TSE SHING CHUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA420/2005

The magistrate was entitled to find the bicycle was not abandoned because it was locked and therefore remained the owner's property, and to infer dishonesty from the appellant's inconsistent statements and admission of greed; the record was properly admitted and the conviction was safe.
19 Sept 1997

HKSAR v. CHAN WAI HUNG

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN WAI HUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA198/1997

Because the newly admitted evidence materially reinforced the appellant's honest belief that the shelf was discarded and the prosecution did not object to its admission, the court found a reasonable doubt as to the appellant's dishonest intention and set aside the conviction, allowing the appeal.
15 Jan 1993

THE QUEEN v. TAM KAM-CHUEN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. TAM KAM-CHUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA909/1992

Conviction quashed because there was no evidence before the Magistrate to show the property belonged to another or that the appellant was dishonest; the prosecution failed to prove theft beyond reasonable doubt.
2 Feb 1985

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG CHUNG YAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. CHEUNG CHUNG YAU AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA33/1985

Because the appellants' contemporaneous admissions under s65C supported a genuine subjective belief that the window was abandoned, they lacked the intention to steal at the relevant time; the magistrate erred in either disregarding the conclusive effect of admissions or in finding the window had already been removed contrary to the admitted facts, and therefore the convictions for going equipped were unsustainable and were quashed.