Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of trust

Legal area

Court

12 May 2026

HKSAR v. SALVI ARPIT MANOJ

Citation

[2026] HKCA 974
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC318/2025

The application for leave to appeal is refused because there are no reasonably arguable grounds: the judge correctly treated sentencing value as the market value of the misappropriated diamonds (HK$2,941,903 after discount), properly applied the sentencing band and starting point (45 months) and lawfully gave a full one‑third reduction for the guilty plea; ignorance and the victim's purported willingness to withdraw did not afford effective mitigation or undermine the sentence.
28 Apr 2026

HKSAR v. WONG DI CHUN (formerly known as LAU YIN CHUN)

Citation

[2026] HKCA 892
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC77/2025

The judge's factual findings that the applicant instigated and masterminded two distinct conspiracies facilitating unauthorised possession and use of mobile phones and smuggling contraband cigarettes justified an 18-month starting point for each charge and a partly consecutive sentence; there was no misapplication of sentencing principles and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was therefore properly refused.
27 Mar 2026

CARMON REESTRUTURA-ENGENHARIA E SERVIÇOS TÉCNICOS ESPECIAIS (SU) LIMITADA v. CARMON RESTRUTURA LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1573
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1812/2022

On the totality of contemporaneous documentation and witness evidence the court finds that Cuenda acted as nominee/trustee for Carmon Angola in respect of the 1st defendant and its bank account; the shares in Carmon HK and the funds in its bank account were held on express trust for Carmon Angola and the December 2022 transfers were misappropriation; therefore declarations, proprietary remedies, equitable compensation, personal liability for misappropriated funds and transfer of shares are warranted.
24 Mar 2026

MAXWELL ROAD LIMITED v. MO AH MAN

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1871
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1933/2024

The court allowed the proposed amendments (save paragraph 14F.3) and dismissed the defendant's appeal: the alternative claims are not inconsistent with the plaintiff's primary case because the plaintiff does not assert the Authorisation Letter as independently valid but seeks to rely on the defendant's pleaded facts; the assignability/standing objection is not demurrable at pleading stage as assignability is arguable and requires trial evidence; the Pre-July-2019 investment-related pleas arise out of the same or substantially the same facts and are therefore allowable under the three-stage te…
27 Feb 2026

HKSAR v. CHEUNG CHEUK MAN

Citation

[2026] HKCA 349
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC67/2025

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show cogent and compelling reasons for the delay and the asserted grounds did not demonstrate that the sentencing judge erred; the judge properly applied sentencing principles in breach of trust cases, took full restitution and mitigation into account and the resultant 40‑month sentence was not manifestly excessive.
28 Jan 2026

SUN HENG v. TE THENG

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 604
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA585/2019

The court found on the balance of probabilities that a Joint Investment Agreement existed in respect of Flat 6A and that the Defendant's contemporaneous notes constituted admissions of the Plaintiff's contributions; the court was not satisfied the Defendant proved that the remittances were his own funds from the French companies; accordingly the Defendant held beneficial interests for the Plaintiff (50% in Flat 6A; Plaintiff entitled to 30% of Haven Shop and to trace proceeds used to acquire Larvotto) and breached duties as trustee by failing to account and pay the Plaintiff his share; declar…
16 Jan 2026

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. (IN LIQUIDATION) v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 276
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1417/2013

The court found that Wu and Tsang (with Zhu) deliberately orchestrated sham FISH and SPR transactions, caused CMED/CMED Tech to pay US$521.8m, and misappropriated funds through Supreme Well and associated entities; Wu, Tsang and Zhu committed fraudulent breaches of fiduciary duty, participated in unlawful means conspiracy and fraudulent trading; various recipients (including Chong, Hao, Bi and numerous corporate entities) were held liable for dishonest assistance, knowing receipt and/or unjust enrichment as supported by tracing and evidence of knowledge or deliberate blindness; Dr Chen was no…
9 Dec 2025

HKSAR v. T.W.

Citation

[2025] HKCA 1106
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC115/2025

The Court held leave to appeal against sentence was refused because the sentencing judge correctly applied established principles for child indecent assault, properly identified and weighed serious aggravating features including a gross breach of trust and repeated digital penetration causing likely psychological harm, and the global sentence of 3 years and 6 months imprisonment was neither manifestly excessive nor wrong in principle.
17 Oct 2025

LO KAI SHUI v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4876
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA404/2018

Most discovery requests under Order 24 r 7 were dismissed for failure to establish prima facie existence, possession or Peruvian Guano relevance or because disclosure was unnecessary or oppressive; the trust supervisory jurisdiction was available but not exercised to order further disclosure because the documents were not necessary to hold trustees accountable in the existing litigation and the practical burden would be disproportionate; KS parties’ discovery was dismissed because Great Eagle company documents were not within KS’s enforceable power to obtain; costs orders made accordingly.
25 Aug 2025

HKSAR v. LEUNG WAI KIN

Citation

[2025] HKCA 777
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC64/2024

The Court held that the sentencing judge understated the distinction between the appellant's lesser and need-driven role and the principals' breach of trust; the appropriate aggregate starting point was reduced to five years (5 years for Count 2 and 2 years for Count 3, to run concurrently). The appellant's late but materially useful NPS warranted a combined discount of about 38% (timely plea plus assistance), producing a sentence of just over 37 months; the Court then honoured a further 2‑month reduction for partial restitution, yielding an overall sentence of 35 months. Concurrent terms wer…