22 Jan 2024
Prosecution established a prima facie case that the cash found on the defendant was proceeds of drug trafficking; the defendant failed to rebut that case on the balance of probabilities because her account and arithmetic were implausible and undocumented; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under s56(1)(b) to order forfeiture of the entire sum to the Government.
20 Sept 2023
The Court held the judge lawfully formed her own view of the facts to the criminal standard where the jury's verdict admitted more than one interpretation, properly rejected the appellant's self-consumption case on the evidence, applied sentencing guidelines to the proven quantity and legitimately limited the self-consumption discount; accordingly the 8 year sentence and forfeiture were upheld and the appeal dismissed.
15 Dec 2022
The prosecution established a prima facie connection between the monies and the drug trafficking offence by the defendant's admissions under s65C and the prosecution case; the respondent produced no evidence to rebut the onus or to persuade the court to exercise its discretion against forfeiture; accordingly the court ordered forfeiture of US$4,260 and HK$1,024 under s56(1) DDO.
19 Mar 2021
On the balance of probabilities the prosecution established a prima facie link between the cash and drug offending (either used in connection with and/or received as a product of a drug offence); the defendant did not discharge the shifted evidential burden to prove innocent origin of the money; accordingly the court ordered forfeiture of HK$74,483.50 under s.56(1) DDO.
25 Feb 2021
Money carried by a drug trafficker for the purpose of facilitating entry into Hong Kong or to support the trafficking operation constitutes money that has been 'used in the commission of or in connection with' a drugs offence within section 56(1)(a) Dangerous Drugs Ordinance; therefore the applicant's contention that mere possession for intended future use is not 'used' fails and there is no arguable point of law of great and general importance warranting a Certificate under section 32(2).
30 Jul 2019
The application for leave to appeal was refused because the forfeiture order was made by consent in open court with an interpreter and the applicant present, the applicant had not complained at the time or within a reasonable period, and a defendant is ordinarily bound by the conduct of experienced counsel; accordingly there was no sufficient basis to grant leave out of time.
20 Mar 2019
The Court affirmed the sentence and forfeiture because the trial judge applied the correct sentencing guidelines (20 years starting point, +1 year for international element, reduced by one-third for guilty plea) and reasonably rejected the applicant's evidence that the US$1,500 were unconnected to the offence; the funds were properly forfeited as connected to the trafficking and no exceptional mitigation (including alleged participation in an anti-drug campaign or assistance) justified further reduction.
18 Mar 2019
A prima facie connection between the cash and drug trafficking was established; the defendant failed to discharge the burden on the balance of probabilities to show the cash was legitimate, and therefore the cash (P31–P35 totaling HK$35,940.1) was forfeited to the Government under s56(1).
29 May 2017
The application for extension of time was refused because the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay and the proposed grounds of appeal lacked merit: the judge had before him a clear admission and defence counsel had consented to the forfeiture, so there was no substantial and plainly arguable challenge to the forfeiture order.
4 Nov 2016
The Court refused leave to appeal out of time and upheld the forfeiture order because no good reason was offered for the 13‑month delay, the cash had an obvious connection to the trafficking offence established by the applicant's own admissions and counsel's concessions, and the applicant failed to discharge the onus to show entitlement to return of the money.