Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Forfeiture under dangerous drugs ordinance s56(1)

  • 3 Jul 2025

    香港特別行政區 訴 趙玉華

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3168
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC13/2024

    Prosecution discharged its civil burden by adducing evidence (admissions, discovery of cash and drug paraphernalia) that, on the balance of probabilities, connected the seized cash and items to drug trafficking; the defence evidence was inconsistent and not credible, failing to rebut the prima facie case, therefore the court ordered forfeiture of exhibits P6, P7, P20, P22 and P21 under DDO s56(1).

    • Drug trafficking
    • Forfeiture under dangerous drugs ordinance s56(1)
    • Standard of proof in forfeiture proceedings

  • 31 Dec 2020

    HKSAR v. WILLAN MUSTAPHA

    Citation
    [2020] HKDC 934
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCC353/2020

    On the admitted facts and contemporaneous text messages the prosecution proved on the balance of probabilities that the HK$19,000 was proceeds of or used in connection with the defendant's drug trafficking; the defendant failed to establish that cash consisted of third‑party banknotes kept for safekeeping and failed to discharge the shifted burden, therefore the court ordered forfeiture under s56(1) DDO.

    • Forfeiture under dangerous drugs ordinance s56(1)
    • Burden and standard of proof in civil forfeiture
    • Prima facie case and shifting burden
    • Credibility and circumstantial inference

  • 12 Nov 2018

    HKSAR v. SHOKI FATUMA RAMADHANI

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFA 51
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMC34/2018

    Leave to appeal was refused because the prosecution established a prima facie case for forfeiture from the applicant's admissions and circumstances, and the applicant failed to rebut that case by adducing evidence (notably by not testifying); her account was implausible and no substantial and grave injustice was shown.

    • Forfeiture under dangerous drugs ordinance s56(1)
    • Burden of proof for forfeiture
    • Opportunity to give evidence
    • Leave to appeal - substantial and grave injustice

  • 2 Sept 2015

    HKSAR v. NGOMA JUMA SHABANI

    Citation
    HKSAR v. NGOMA JUMA SHABANI
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC214/2014

    On the evidence (Summary of Facts, antecedent statement and admissions) the court was entitled to infer on the balance of probabilities that the US$4,500 was at least used in connection with drug trafficking (or was the result/product) and, having rejected the appellant's innocent explanation, the judge properly ordered forfeiture under s56(1) even though he did not specify which subsection applied; the appeal is dismissed.

    • Forfeiture under dangerous drugs ordinance s56(1)
    • Drug trafficking
    • Evidential inference from summary facts
    • Duty to give reasons
    • Burden of proof on claimant