Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Fund tracing

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2024

DING YOU v. CITIBANK (HONG KONG) LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2025
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP5361/2024

A Norwich Pharmacal order was granted because there was cogent evidence that the applicant was defrauded, the specific disclosure sought was likely to produce substantial and worthwhile benefits (identification of the account holder and tracing of funds), and the scope of disclosure was not unduly wide; the Bank's neutral stance and willingness to comply reinforced the justification for the order.
10 Nov 2022

LEE CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI CHIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1880/2020

Although the court found there was a serious issue to be tried on the plaintiffs' trust claim, the applications for preservation order, proprietary injunction, interim preservation of company assets and ancillary discovery were dismissed because (a) plaintiffs delayed in adducing expert reports and those reports were refused; (b) damages were an adequate remedy given substantial net equity in the properties and no demonstrated inability of defendants to satisfy judgment; (c) many discovery requests failed Order 24 r.10 requirement of direct allusion to documents or were outside defendants' po…
30 Aug 2022

AICI TAN v. ZHU YUAN MU GYXY TRADE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKDC 909
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2078/2022

The court found the plaintiff has a viable proprietary claim to the funds and that the bankers' records sought are highly germane to tracing those funds; disclosure pursuant to s21 Evidence Ordinance is necessary and proportionate because it is likely to lead to locating or preserving assets, the scope is not excessive and account holder privacy was considered and outweighed by the need for disclosure, therefore a disclosure order was made and costs awarded to the banks on an indemnity basis.
19 Jan 2021

LIAO CHEN TOH v. LOYAL INTERNATIONAL ENTERPRISES CO. LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 164
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2302/2014

The court exercised its equitable discretion to order further targeted disclosure because the plaintiffs were prima facie owners of the subject sums and the specific classes of documents sought were reasonably necessary to ascertain the whereabouts, purpose and consequences of transfers for effective preservation and tracing; delay and general inconvenience did not outweigh the need for disclosure and the defendants failed to show special prejudice or that compensation in damages made disclosure unnecessary.
27 Nov 2017

K&L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS

Citation

K&L GATES v. NAVIN KUMAR AGGARWAL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1061/2011

The court ordered specific discovery in part: bank account opening documents and mandates, bank statements, reconciliation statements and client ledgers (with client names redacted to client numbers) for the relevant period to permit a fund-flow analysis; seizure lists and police witness statements; documents and escrow agreements relating to the Escrow Actions and settlements; internal correspondence and meeting notes/emails concerning queried transfers (including the 16 June 2011 meeting and emails from August 2010); refused orders where K&L Gates swore no documents exist or where privilege…
8 Apr 2016

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD AND OTHERS v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

CHINA METAL RECYCLING (HOLDINGS) LTD AND OTHERS v. CHUN CHI WAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1412/2013

The court refused to re-open the Striking Out Decision because the applicants did not establish exceptional circumstances: there was no unfairness or breach of natural justice requiring re-opening, alleged factual confusion did not negate findings that documents and explanations were missing, and disagreement with a judge of coordinate jurisdiction is not a basis to re-open; relief from sanction was refused because defendants had long delay, a history of non-compliance and the court would not exercise its discretion to grant relief given the circumstances; both applications were dismissed wit…
12 Nov 2015

COSIMO BORRELLI as Trustee of the SFC LITIGATION TRUST v. ALLEN TAK YUEN CHAN

Citation

COSIMO BORRELLI as Trustee of the SFC LITIGATION TRUST v. ALLEN TAK YUEN CHAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2174/2014

The Disclosure Order, read in its context, required the third parties to provide a historical fund-flow trail of the Monies from the SCB accounts; the third parties had not complied, their non-compliance was deliberate yet within their power to remedy, and the court therefore properly exercised its jurisdiction to grant an unless order compelling compliance by a specified deadline.
7 Mar 2012

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. KENNETH CHEUNG CHI SHING AND OTHERS

Citation

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. KENNETH CHEUNG CHI SHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1702/2008

The court found respondents breached duties of skill and care by failing to obtain or consider independent valuations or adequate due diligence, repeatedly breached Listing Rules by non‑disclosure of connected transactions, and found that Kenneth Cheung and Yvonne Yeung received and retained company funds (defalcation). Shareholder resolutions did not validly ratify or absolve the directors because material facts (including fund flows and personal receipts) were not fully and fairly disclosed. Remedies ordered: disqualification (12 years for 1st and 2nd respondents; 7 years for 4th respondent…
20 Aug 1998

NG AU YUEN NGAR, PAMELA v. NG KIT LING AND OTHERS

Citation

NG AU YUEN NGAR, PAMELA v. NG KIT LING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC1/1995

Petitioner failed to prove, on the required degree of conviction, that Douglas had any beneficial interest in Inter Marine, Joyfine or the Convention Plaza Flat; CNAC's HK$8 million was a loan to Joyfine/Chan with no evidential link to Douglas; payments from Douglas to Chan were loans/repayments unrelated to the Flat; therefore the execution claim against the 2nd,3rd and 4th respondents fails and must be dismissed.