Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confiscation order

Legal area

Court

25 Jul 2025

HKSAR v. LAM CHUNG YIU CHARLES

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3294
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC98/2023

The court rejected the defendant's arguments that the civil judgment debt constituted an 'obligation having priority' and that it could refuse to make a confiscation order to avoid double recovery. The defendant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the AMBR was nil or significantly lower; the court accepted the prosecution's asset identification and expert watch valuation (subject to excluding one sold item and one illegible tag) and found AMBR (net of four returned watches if forfeited separately) was HK$12,200,461.79, which is less than the VoP (USD$1,875,030.64); therefore…
8 Jan 2025

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SHIN DONG KI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 65
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV29/2023

The Court of Appeal set aside the Judge's decision and discharged the restraint order because the ex parte application and supporting materials failed to particularise a specified offence coherently (the particulars of the Hong Kong charge did not match the Korean predicate relied upon), the Secretary could not show on the material before the court that R1 had derived a recoverable benefit from the specified offence as required by OSCO (the tax central to the Korean scheme had been repaid and R1 acted as nominee), and therefore the statutory preconditions for a restraint order were not satisf…
19 Apr 2024

HKSAR v. HA BUT YEE

Citation

[2024] HKCA 315
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC104/2023

The single judge did not determine the substantive challenge to the confiscation order but referred the appellant's leave application to the full court to decide whether the appellant may pursue the leave application absent from the jurisdiction and to adjudicate the contested legal and factual issues underpinning the amount of the confiscation order; the referral was necessary given the issues of presence and the interplay with restraint order variations.
13 Sept 2023

香港特別行政區訴李兆平

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1280
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC221/2021

Court held on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had benefitted from the specified offences; assessed the value of the benefit at HKD12,324,514 (after deducting returned amount) and determined the defendant's realisable property at the time of the order to be HKD1,577,222.64 (bank accounts 1–5 plus withdrawn bail money). Accordingly a confiscation order for HKD1,577,222.64 under OSCO was made with a six-month payment period and default imprisonment of two years four months to be served concurrently with the existing 48‑month sentence.
16 Aug 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM KIT-I

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2023

The principal dispute was the substantive question whether refusal to grant a confiscation order discharged the restraint order (Question 1); the civil/criminal characterisation (Question 2) was procedural and secondary; issue-based strict apportionment was rejected but a modest deduction was warranted because SJ was not wholly successful; accordingly the costs order nisi is varied so Tam pays 80% of SJ's costs of FACV 12/2022 plus costs of the proceedings below, to be taxed if not agreed; no order as to costs in FACC 4/2022, FACC 1/2023 and FACV 2/2023.
11 May 2023

HKSAR v. HA BUT-YEE

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1208
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC319/2016

The court found on the balance of probabilities that D2’s receipts and trading gains arose from a continuous course of criminal conduct involving general assistance and information from D1 across 356 calls; those receipts fell within s2(6) OSCO as payments in connection with the offence, certifying proceeds at HK$125,664,254.30 and ordering confiscation of the agreed realisable assets HK$63,000,000 with specified payment and default sanctions.
29 Mar 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM KIT-I

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 7
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2023

On proper contextual and purposive construction of OSCO s2(16A) and s15(5)(b), an application for a confiscation order is only 'concluded' for the purposes of automatically discharging a restraint order when the court has completed the statutory process of inquiry and determination and the purpose of the RO is exhausted; a judge's refusal to make a CO on a ground that does not eliminate the prospect of a CO (here, a finding that the defendant had not 'absconded') does not conclude the application and does not discharge the RO. Furthermore, appeals against refusal to discharge an RO are civil…
29 Mar 2023

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM KIT-I

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 7
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2022

On a proper contextual and purposive construction of OSCO, the judge's decision not to make a confiscation order on the basis that the respondent had not absconded did not conclude the Secretary for Justice's application for a confiscation order within the meaning of section 2(16A)(a) and therefore did not discharge the restraint order by operation of section 15(5)(b); the RO remains in force while its purpose of securing assets for a prospective confiscation order subsists.
29 Mar 2023

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM KIT-I

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 7
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV12/2022

On proper contextual and purposive construction of OSCO, a restraint order is not automatically discharged merely because a judge declines to make a confiscation order for a reason that does not dispose of the confiscation application on its merits; section 2(16A)(a) applies where the court has decided the confiscation application after the statutory inquiry process or where the order is satisfied, and only then does section 15(5)(b) operate to discharge the RO. Appeals against refusal to discharge an RO are civil in nature.
16 Sept 2022

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM KIT-I

Citation

[2022] HKCFA 19
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV367/2022

Leave to appeal was granted because the identified questions raised issues of requisite importance; the Committee did not determine the substantive legal issues on the merits, it continued the stay of execution of the Court of Appeal's judgment and listed the appeal for hearing on 28 February 2023.