Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tracing of funds

Legal area

Court

23 Mar 2026

金子楷對格萊國際控股有限公司及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 452
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP480/2024

The court found the HK$199,900 received by the second defendant was traceable to the plaintiff’s funds misappropriated by fraud, that the receipt constituted unjust enrichment, and the second defendant failed to prove she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; accordingly the second defendant was ordered to repay HK$199,900 with interest and to pay the plaintiff’s costs (subject to specified legal aid charge and assessment rules).
13 Feb 2026

EXCELLENCE RAISE OVERSEAS LIMITED, JOLLY ADMIRE LIMITED, HIGH EXPRESS HOLDINGS LIMITED v. ANZ COMMODITY TRADING PTY LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFA 9
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV174/2025

The Court granted leave to appeal because the trial court's declarations of constructive trust raise questions of great general or public importance concerning whether and when a constructive trust arises over funds passing through chains (including ultimate receipt by innocent volunteers), the nature of such a trust, the role and timing of rescission, communication requirements for rescission, and the applicability of the Halley exception; the Court did not decide the substantive appeals but recognised these issues merit full appellate determination.
12 Jan 2026

GOING BRIGHT LTD v. ZHU HUAYUE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6319
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1603/2019

On the balance of probabilities the Court found the 2010 sale and 2011 assignment were sham transactions: the purchase funds principally derived from GB/Gladstrong and an advancement by Wang; title deeds and possession remained with GB/LI; Zhu was aware of and accepted the arrangements (including by signing the Letter of Undertaking) and therefore was not a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; accordingly Zhu holds legal title as bare trustee for GB and equitable relief (declaration and transfer order) is granted; the illegality argument does not bar relief on the facts and applying…
9 Jan 2026

梁謂祺對香港上海匯豐銀行有限公司及另七人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 65
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4115/2024

The court found the third defendant had complied with the original disclosure order; the applicant's fresh requests arose from errors in the applicant's original particulars and were not properly pursued as amendments; the applicant failed to satisfy Order 24 rr.7,7A,8 that the further material was relevant, in the defendant's control, and necessary; the requested transaction‑trail and second‑tier account details were too broad and impracticable given mixing of funds. Therefore the further disclosure summons was dismissed and costs awarded to the third defendant.
14 Jul 2025

CHAN CHING MAN v. LIVI BANK LTD

Citation

[2025] HKDC 1097
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1499/2025

The court exercised jurisdiction under s21 of the Evidence Ordinance and, applying the established s21 criteria, found the plaintiff had shown a real prospect that disclosure would lead to locating or preserving the allegedly misappropriated funds, that the documents sought were sufficiently specific, and that the public and private interests favored disclosure; accordingly a disclosure order was granted in the terms specified in the draft order.
12 Nov 2024

JIN ZIKAI v. GRIFFIN INTERNATIONAL HOLDING LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1914
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP480/2024

The court granted the s21 disclosure order because there was strong documentary evidence of fraudulent transfers from the plaintiff to the first tier account and onward to defendants, the requested information was specific and targeted to tracing and preserving assets, and the Bank adopted a neutral stance without substantive objection apart from a reasonable compliance period; the balance of interests favoured disclosure.
7 Nov 2024

HO LOK YI v. HA OLIVER AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1882
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP479/2024

The court granted the s 21 disclosure because the plaintiff demonstrated a strong evidential basis that HK$200,000 was transferred to the 1st defendant's account, the information sought was specific and likely to assist in locating or preserving proprietary assets, and the balance of interests favoured disclosure given the Bank's neutral stance and prior orders for disclosure.
6 Nov 2024

CREATE TOGETHER TECHNOLOGY CO LTD v. WELLTEC INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2819
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA659/2024

The court continued the proprietary injunction limited to the funds in the Defendant's accounts traced to the Plaintiff because there is a serious issue to be tried in unjust enrichment and the balance of convenience favors preservation; the Mareva (freezing) injunction was not continued because the Plaintiff failed to establish a good arguable case on the fraudulent nature of the contracts at this interlocutory stage.
2 Aug 2024

DONALD SIDNEY DOBKIN v. HUNG WING FUNG

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1216
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1733/2022

Although change of position is legally available where the defendant received no benefit, the defendant's affirmation was evidentially insufficient to establish the defence; accordingly conditional leave to defend was granted only if the defendant paid HKD1,971,742.28 into court within 56 days, failing which judgment for the specified sums, interest and costs would be entered and a declaration of ownership was made in favour of the plaintiff.
12 May 2023

PACIFIC RAINBOW INTERNATIONAL INC v. SHENZHEN WOLVERINE TECH LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1292
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3023/2016

The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the Sum was traceable into D2 and D3's accounts, that D2 and D3 were unjustly enriched and held funds subject to proprietary restitution and constructive trusts, and that knowing receipt, dishonest assistance and conspiracy were established; the BFP and change of position defences were not proven and judgment was entered for the plaintiff with specified payments, declarations, constructive trusts, interest and costs.