12 Jan 2024
The magistrate lawfully exercised discretion under s102(1)(c) CPO because the admitted and recorded facts established that the exhibit (the black reusable bag) was used in committing the theft; the forfeiture was not disproportionate and there was no basis for appellate interference, therefore the forfeiture order was upheld.
12 Feb 2016
On the admitted facts that the appellant remained in the closed area after being warned and handed over bags containing the nine iPhones to other persons, the offence was committed in respect of those iPhones and they were liable to forfeiture under s102 of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance; the magistrate properly exercised his discretion and the appellate court would have reached the same conclusion; the appeal is dismissed.
30 Jul 2015
On the evidence and the jury verdict the $52,000 used to purchase the Rolex watch were proceeds derived from the sale of stolen goods; accordingly the watch came into possession in connection with the offence under section 102(1)(a) and the person entitled to the monies and the watch is the victim Yang Gengjie, so the court ordered delivery of the watch to Yang Gengjie under section 102(2)(a).