29 May 2025
The application for a certificate was refused because the questions either did not raise points of law of great and general importance or did not arise: the applicant was bound by his guilty plea and agreed Summary of Facts which determined the basis and extent of proceeds for confiscation, and existing authority (HKSAR v Li Kwok Cheung George) adequately addresses the meaning of 'proceeds'.
29 Mar 2023
On proper contextual and purposive construction of OSCO s2(16A) and s15(5)(b), an application for a confiscation order is only 'concluded' for the purposes of automatically discharging a restraint order when the court has completed the statutory process of inquiry and determination and the purpose of the RO is exhausted; a judge's refusal to make a CO on a ground that does not eliminate the prospect of a CO (here, a finding that the defendant had not 'absconded') does not conclude the application and does not discharge the RO. Furthermore, appeals against refusal to discharge an RO are civil…
29 Mar 2023
On a proper contextual and purposive construction of OSCO, the judge's decision not to make a confiscation order on the basis that the respondent had not absconded did not conclude the Secretary for Justice's application for a confiscation order within the meaning of section 2(16A)(a) and therefore did not discharge the restraint order by operation of section 15(5)(b); the RO remains in force while its purpose of securing assets for a prospective confiscation order subsists.
29 Mar 2023
The Court held that a judge's refusal to make a confiscation order on a basis that does not eliminate the prospect of a confiscation order (eg finding s8(1)(a)(ii)(B) not applicable) does not, as a matter of law, conclude the confiscation application under s2(16A)(a) and therefore does not trigger automatic discharge of a restraint order under s15(5)(b); further, appeals against refusals to discharge restraint orders under OSCO are civil in nature and lie to the Court of Appeal under HCO s13(2)(a).
29 Mar 2023
On proper contextual and purposive construction of OSCO, a restraint order is not automatically discharged merely because a judge declines to make a confiscation order for a reason that does not dispose of the confiscation application on its merits; section 2(16A)(a) applies where the court has decided the confiscation application after the statutory inquiry process or where the order is satisfied, and only then does section 15(5)(b) operate to discharge the RO. Appeals against refusal to discharge an RO are civil in nature.
1 Mar 2019
The court found on the balance of probabilities that the cash and transfer deposits into the third‑party HSBC account were payments or rewards received by D2 in connection with both his loan sharking and his money laundering offence, that his aggregate proceeds therefore exceeded the $100,000 threshold, and that the recoverable amount is the total deposits/transfer sum of $4,328,000; a confiscation order for that amount was therefore made with a default imprisonment term of 3.5 years under s13 OSCO.
1 Apr 2016
The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had absconded, reasonable steps and publication notices had been made, the respondent could have been convicted of dealing with property representing proceeds of an indictable offence and had received at least HK$1.24 million from victims; the only realizable property was the last bank credit balance; accordingly the statutory conditions under section 8 OSCO were met and the court ordered confiscation of the account's last credit balance (EUR 9,974.94 and US$250.11) to be paid to the Registrar of the High Court.