Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Blind-eye knowledge

Legal area

Court

31 Dec 2025

LAI CHIK KUN MICHAEL AND OTHERS v. THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2741/2018

Dismissal of leave applications because applicant failed to establish a prima facie case of criminal contempt: material did not supply sufficient evidence of the requisite state of mind (knowledge or lack of honest belief) of any intended respondent; ex parte proceedings do not permit drawing adverse inferences from non‑participation; admissions in the supplementary affirmation undermined the knowledge allegation; negligence or late production does not amount to criminal contempt.
25 Nov 2024

WANG SHULIANG v. PAN DAMING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3363
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA590/2023

Court held that on strike‑out threshold the constructive trust and Quistclose trust claims against the 2nd Defendant were arguable and could survive strike‑out (leave to amend granted) because the pleaded facts could support actual or blind‑eye knowledge and proprietary claims and tracing/discovery are matters for trial; however the conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims were struck out as time‑barred because the alleged fraudulent scheme could, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered before the limitation cut‑off.
20 Jan 2020

TOP POINT LTD v. K&L GATES (A FIRM OF SOLICITORS)

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 234
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1088/2011

The impugned phrases were struck out because, as pleaded, they could be read as relying on mere constructive knowledge or negligence to establish the subjective dishonest intention necessary for claims of sham and conspiracy; where fraud is central, allegations must be pleaded with particularity to show actual or blind‑eye knowledge rather than mere negligence. The firm was granted general leave to amend the pleaded paragraphs to particularize that it relies on actual or blind‑eye knowledge (not mere carelessness) within 21 days.
1 Aug 2019

GALLERIA (HONG KONG), LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. DBS BANK LTD., HONG KONG BRANCH

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1877
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL4/2016

Contemporaneous documents and witness evidence demonstrated innocent explanations for the IMB reports and absence of actual or deliberate blind-eye knowledge by DBSHK officers; the required mental elements for knowing receipt, dishonest assistance and fraudulent trading were not proved and the bank was a victim rather than participant; therefore all claims dismissed.
12 Mar 2010

PETER GEOFFREY DE KRASSEL v. VINCENT JULIA CHU AND OTHERS

Citation

PETER GEOFFREY DE KRASSEL v. VINCENT JULIA CHU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1151/2005

Plaintiff failed to prove ownership of the contested bearer share and 50% interest; there was no agreement to injure by unlawful means nor predominant intention to injure by defendants; D3 acted honestly on Tiffany's instructions without actual or blind-eye knowledge of any plaintiff shareholding; the alleged overt acts were lawful or innocent corporate steps. Therefore all claims against the 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants fail and are dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

LAI CHIK KUN MICHAEL AND OTHERS v. THE BAPTIST CONVENTION OF HONG KONG AND ANOTHER

WANG SHULIANG v. PAN DAMING AND OTHERS

TOP POINT LTD v. K&L GATES (A FIRM OF SOLICITORS)

GALLERIA (HONG KONG), LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) AND OTHERS v. DBS BANK LTD., HONG KONG BRANCH

PETER GEOFFREY DE KRASSEL v. VINCENT JULIA CHU AND OTHERS