Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forfeiture order

Legal area

Court

24 Dec 2020

香港特別行政區訴高衛健

Citation

[2020] HKCA 1053
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC377/2018

The Court of Appeal exercised its statutory power under s83W Cap.221 to order that four months of the appellant's time spent in custody while awaiting appeal shall not be counted towards his sentence because the appellant's conduct (multiple abandoned applications, failure to comply with directions and improper direct approaches to the Court of Final Appeal) had seriously and unusually wasted court time and resources.
26 Aug 2019

HKSAR v. HERRY JANE YUSUPH

Citation

[2019] HKCA 956
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC93/2019

Extension of time to file the notice of application for leave to appeal was granted because the delay was short and the applicant presented arguable grounds of error: the sentencing judge erred in his arithmetic starting point calculation (8 years exceeded the arithmetical starting point of approximately 94.47 months), thereby making it reasonably arguable that the sentence may be excessive; accordingly the applicant was permitted to pursue leave and was granted an Appeal Aid Certificate so the Court of Appeal can determine the substantive issues including any challenge to the forfeiture orde…
7 Nov 2017

香港特別行政區訴陳麗聰

Citation

香港特別行政區訴陳麗聰
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA98/2017

The appeal fails because the appellant validly and voluntarily withdrew her claim on the record after being warned and without any allegation of improper pressure, and because the evidence established that the vehicle/trailer and concealed goods were involved in offences under Cap.60 and the third party failed to prove absence of negligence; accordingly the magistrate's forfeiture order under Cap.60 s28 was lawful and is upheld.
12 Oct 2017

香港特別行政區訴周仲新

Citation

香港特別行政區訴周仲新
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA73/2017

The court upheld the magistrate's exercise of statutory forfeiture power under s.22(1)(b) given the appellant's repeated offences, but exercised appellate discretion to make a pragmatic, proportionate adjustment by returning specifically identified items (item 1 and item 11) to the appellant while maintaining the fine and the remainder of the forfeiture order.
15 Mar 2016

HKSAR v. ABDALLAH TATU SAID

Citation

HKSAR v. ABDALLAH TATU SAID
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC218/2015

The forfeiture order had not been perfected because the court’s confiscation form was not finally recorded (yellow copy filed) at the time counsel returned to seek re-opening; therefore the trial judge was not functus officio and erred in refusing to re-open the matter — the forfeiture order is quashed and the matter remitted for fresh determination.
20 Jan 2005

HKSAR v. BEST SUCCESS HOLDING LTD

Citation

HKSAR v. BEST SUCCESS HOLDING LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC340/2003

The court exercised its discretion under s132 Cap 528 to decline outright forfeiture of all machines and, having considered statutory purpose, deterrence, hardship and the parties' proposals, ordered partial return of certain items and accepted a payment in lieu (HK$1.3m) with specified conditional forfeiture: items 9–16 returned; items 23–28 forfeited unless full payment of the fine; and HK$1.3m payable to Government by 1 February 2005.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 高衛健

HKSAR v. HERRY JANE YUSUPH

香港特別行政區 訴 陳麗聰

香港特別行政區 訴 周仲新

HKSAR v. ABDALLAH TATU SAID

HKSAR v. BEST SUCCESS HOLDING LTD

香港特別行政區訴高衛健

香港特別行政區訴陳麗聰

香港特別行政區訴周仲新