31 May 2022
Although the appellants were acquitted on identification, the trial judge accepted credible evidence that the machines and top-up device were used in illegal gambling; under section 26 of the Gambling Ordinance forfeiture is mandatory when equipment has been used for illegal gambling, so the confiscation order must be upheld and the appeal dismissed.
27 Oct 2016
The prosecution's Summary of Facts established a prima facie connection between the US$3,000 and the applicant's trafficking; the burden shifted to the applicant who failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the money was unconnected; the judge's adverse credibility finding was justified and there was no procedural error, so the forfeiture order of US$3,000 under s56(1) was properly made.
21 Jun 2001
The forfeiture order was upheld because the court found an offence under the Ordinance had been committed (constructive possession and/or import/export restrictions) and section 36(1) does not require a conviction; the magistrate did not misapply her discretion and partial forfeiture was inappropriate; appeal dismissed.
25 Jan 1985
The magistrate erred in returning the goods because the prior fine was irrelevant, the respondent failed to prove ownership or to show good reason or undue hardship to rebut forfeiture, and the court may consider relevant facts including export conditions; therefore the correct exercise of discretion required forfeiture to the Crown.