Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forfeiture under dangerous drugs ordinance

Legal area

Court

18 Mar 2021

HKSAR v. JAVIER DUVAN AMADO PEREZ

Citation

[2021] HKCA 345
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC184/2020

The judge refused the extension of time because the applicant's explanation (waiting for return of property and alleged advice from counsel) was not credible and the forfeiture order was agreed by counsel and supported by overwhelming evidence linking the HK$24,000 to drug trafficking; consequently the out‑of‑time leave application would in any event have been refused as devoid of merit.
21 Nov 2018

HKSAR v. SITOE CLAUDIO MARCELINO

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1454
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC407/2018

The WhatsApp voice message on the iPhone unambiguously referred to the consignment that arrived the next day and was collected by the defendant; on the balance of probabilities the prosecution satisfied section 56 and there were no grounds to exercise discretion against forfeiture; therefore the iPhone (and the Nokia phone, battery and SIM cards) must be forfeited.
8 Aug 2018

HKSAR v. CHING WAI-LAN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1819
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC236/2015

The court ruled that the prosecution had established a prima facie case that both sums ($3,164.10 found in the handbag and $11,000 found in the bedside drawer) were possessed as a result of or product of drug trafficking under s56(1)(a)/(b); the defendant subsequently conceded the $3,164.10, and on the defendant's evidence the court accepted on the balance of probabilities that part of the $11,000 was attributable to rent payments from a flatmate, affecting the question of forfeiture for that sum.
1 Mar 2017

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION v. YEUNG SHEK KIN

Citation

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION v. YEUNG SHEK KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC329/2016

Section 56(1) Dangerous Drugs Ordinance prevails over s102(2) Criminal Procedure Ordinance where specific forfeiture provision applies; the prosecution proved a prima facie case that the cash was proceeds of drug trafficking, the defendant failed to rebut that case, and therefore the cash seized (HK$13,760; HK$17,990; RMB420) is forfeited under s56(1).
11 Jan 2017

HKSAR v. OKORIE NWABUEZE JOSEPH

Citation

HKSAR v. OKORIE NWABUEZE JOSEPH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC194/2016

Leave to appeal out of time was not required but would have been granted if necessary given credible legal advice; the sentence of 13 years (18 years starting point, +1 year international enhancement, one-third plea discount) was within applicable guidelines and not excessive; the forfeiture order was properly made because the prosecution established a prima facie connection between the US$3,000 and the drug trafficking and the applicant failed to rebut that connection on the balance of probabilities.

Hong Kong Case Law

HKSAR v. JAVIER DUVAN AMADO PEREZ

HKSAR v. SITOE CLAUDIO MARCELINO

HKSAR v. CHING WAI-LAN

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION v. YEUNG SHEK KIN

HKSAR v. OKORIE NWABUEZE JOSEPH