Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Money laundering (s.25)

Legal area

Court

3 Nov 1998

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4295/1998

The phrase "is to be charged" in Section 14(2)(a) requires a settled present intention and the ability to charge at the time of the application; a mere conditional intention dependent on obtaining further admissible evidence is insufficient. Because the Government lacked the present ability to charge and only had a conditional intention, the statutory precondition was not satisfied and the restraint orders could not be continued.
3 Nov 1998

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4303/1998

The restraint orders lapsed because the Secretary for Justice did not, at the relevant time, have the requisite settled intention and present ability to charge each respondent with a specified offence; a conditional intention dependent on obtaining further admissible evidence is insufficient to satisfy s.14(2)(a). The balance of probabilities standard applies to benefit from an offence but not to the requirement that a person "is to be charged".
3 Nov 1998

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4307/1998

The court held that 'is to be charged' in s14(2)(a) requires a settled intention to commence criminal proceedings coupled with the ability to do so at the time the statement is made; the Government only had a conditional intention dependent on obtaining admissible evidence and therefore was not in a position to charge the respondents, so the restraint orders could not be continued and must lapse.
3 Nov 1998

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP4292/1998

The court held that the phrase "is to be charged" in s14(2)(a) requires a settled intention at the time coupled with the ability to implement that intention; a merely conditional intention contingent on obtaining further admissible evidence is insufficient. Because the Government was not then in a position to charge the respondents, the ex parte restraint orders could not properly continue and therefore lapsed immediately; the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities) applies to the benefit inquiry only, not to the requirement that a settled intention to charge exists.

Hong Kong Case Law

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHAN YIN BING AND OTHERS