Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appropriation

Legal area

Court

5 Nov 2025

HKSAR v. CHU KA LOK

Citation

[2025] HKCA 951
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC69/2023

The Court found insufficient evidence that the payer intended the payments to be held on trust or that the applicant agreed to such restriction; applying Preddy the increases in the applicant's account balances were choses in action belonging to the applicant; accordingly sections 6(2) and 6(3) of the Theft Ordinance did not apply and the prosecution failed to prove that the property belonged to the Company; the convictions were unsafe and were quashed and the sentence set aside.
8 Jul 2025

香港特別行政區訴温志成

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4252
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA470/2024

On rehearing the court, after reviewing CCTV and witness evidence, accepted the Crown's case that the appellant picked up P2(1) from the shelf, did not return it and left without paying, and that this established appropriation with dishonest intent beyond reasonable doubt; the trial judge's conviction for theft of that one book was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.
16 May 2025

HKSAR v. MA CHUN KIT

Citation

[2025] HKCA 451
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC224/2020

The Court held that the trial judge's summing-up, read in context, did not produce an unfair trial because the focus and particulars of the charges were on appropriation of Hyundai HK's choses in action by unauthorised transfers, the alleged references to post-transfer dealings were evidential of dishonesty rather than a separate basis of liability, and the evidence against the appellant was overwhelming; Ghosh remains the law in Hong Kong and there was no legal requirement to expand the objective limb to include the defendant's beliefs such that a material miscarriage occurred; accordingly t…
13 Apr 2022

香港特別行政區訴林運興

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1029
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA350/2020

Although the appellant appropriated the items, the prosecution failed to prove dishonesty beyond reasonable doubt under the Ghosh test given the evidence that the land was used openly by villagers, photographs showing the items placed in plain view after removal, contemporaneous conduct suggesting removal of an obstruction and the trial judge's failure to analyse the appellant's disposal method and intent; conviction was unsafe and must be quashed.
15 Jun 2016

LIANG PUI SAW KIAN AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG YUK CHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

LIANG PUI SAW KIAN AND ANOTHER v. LEUNG YUK CHUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP130/2016

The Administratrices' acts (the letter of 13 March 2007 identifying 30% as set aside, court orders permitting sale and distribution of 70%, separate accounting and allocation of funds) constituted a valid appropriation of 30% of the residuary estate to meet clause 3(b)(i); consequently that appropriated 30% (and income from it) is to be distributed equally among the five brothers under clause 5(a).
21 Aug 2015

HKSAR v. KO ELLE WAI SUM

Citation

HKSAR v. KO ELLE WAI SUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA374/2015

The court upheld that appropriation can occur even where consent might be argued; belief in consent is relevant only to dishonesty. Applying the Ghosh test and the undisputed facts, the magistrate legitimately inferred that the appellant dishonestly appropriated the apple with intent to permanently deprive the owner, so the conviction was safe and the appeal must be dismissed.
10 Aug 2015

HKSAR v. LAU CHUN PONG

Citation

HKSAR v. LAU CHUN PONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA633/2013

Given the CCTV and objective circumstances, the magistrate was entitled to reject the appellant's exculpatory testimony and to infer that upon reuniting with Kwok the appellant assumed the rights of owner and formed a joint dishonest intention; that inference was the only reasonable and irresistible conclusion and supported the conviction for theft.
8 Jan 2014

香港特別行政區訴趙美君

Citation

香港特別行政區訴趙美君
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA71/2013

The appeal is allowed because the magistrate's conduct during defence counsel's closing submissions created a real danger the appellant did not receive a fair trial by pre-judging facts and curtailing legal argument on key issues (appropriation and ownership of the bank account); accordingly the conviction, sentence and compensation order are quashed and no retrial is ordered after balancing the relevant public interest factors.
18 Jan 2013

HKSAR v. HUNG FAN KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. HUNG FAN KIT
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC399/2011

Conviction on charge two was quashed because, on the evidence, the property in the diamonds passed to Diamond Station Ltd on the raising of invoices and there was no proof of dishonesty at the time of that passing; conviction on charge one was upheld because evidence supported that the applicant controlled Diamond Station Ltd, had access to the safe and, absent explanation, it was an irresistible inference he dishonestly appropriated the 49 jewels; sentence on charge one reduced from three years to two years imprisonment in light of mitigating factors.
9 Dec 2010

DRAGON PEARL NIGHT CLUB RESTAURANT LTD v. LEUNG WAN KEE SHIPYARD LTD

Citation

DRAGON PEARL NIGHT CLUB RESTAURANT LTD v. LEUNG WAN KEE SHIPYARD LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA889/2010

As a matter of construction of the written Agreement (considering CIF delivery terms, reservation of documents/seatrials, risk retention/insurance obligation, and the scheme of instalments), property in the vessel remained with Leung Wan Kee until completion and delivery in Hong Kong; Leung Wan Kee therefore possessed a common law and statutory lien limited to the 5th instalment and a statutory right to sell; accordingly Dragon Pearl's applications for delivery up and interim injunction failed and were dismissed, the striking out application failed, Dragon Pearl was granted unconditional leav…