Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Bona fide purchaser defence

Legal area

Court

17 Oct 2025

WANG WEIQING v. ZHUO YIHAO AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4941
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1657/2022

The proprietary injunction as to the TV6 Address was discharged because the plaintiff unjustifiably proceeded ex parte in respect of Binance and committed serious material non-disclosure (not shown to be innocent) about pre-action correspondence and the pooled-hot-wallet nature of TV6 and potential bona fide purchaser defence; the court declined to re-grant the proprietary interlocutory injunction because the plaintiff failed to justify the nondisclosure and did not demonstrate means to honour undertaking as to damages; discharge delayed 14 days to permit further steps; disclosure orders unde…
22 Jul 2025

LEUNG CHOI FAI v. WONG YEE FAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3163
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1572/2022

Service at the Classical Garden address was regular and D6 had notice by 24 November 2022; the further evidence was inadmissible because it could have been obtained earlier; D6 failed to establish a meritorious defence (bona fide purchaser or change of position) because his transaction records were inconsistent, failed to show source/flow of USDT, and unusual payment patterns put him on inquiry; the default judgment therefore stands and the late payment into court does not alter that outcome; appeal dismissed and payment in ordered paid to plaintiff, costs to defendant.
28 Aug 2024

DEINES-POLLAN SERVICES LLC v. LIAN SHUN INTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2196
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA286/2023

The 2nd defendant, as the direct recipient of the plaintiff's transfers, failed to raise a credible or believable defence; the bona fide purchaser defence is inapplicable to a direct recipient and, in any event, D2's account was not credible, so judgment is entered for plaintiff for US$2,117,500 with interest and an order for account or equitable compensation for knowing receipt.
18 Jun 2024

SHENZHEN HIFROZEN INTERNATIONAL LOGISTICS DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD v. SPLENDID JOY CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2024] HKDC 894
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3057/2021

Plaintiff established a prima facie claim in unjust enrichment and the Defendant's factual case that the funds were received in bona fide commercial transactions with Sinocell was incapable of belief on the evidence before the court; accordingly summary judgment was entered for US$78,988 on unjust enrichment, while claims in fraud and proprietary tracing over the remaining balance were left to be defended at trial; leave to amend the Defence was granted and interim payment refused.
26 Oct 2023

CHANG ANNA I-NO v. CAIBAOLONG TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2782
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA431/2018

The plaintiff established a personal claim in unjust enrichment by tracing US$560,240.90 of fraudulently obtained funds into the 4th defendant's account under the FIFO rule; the Chen transactions were unlawful under PRC law and constitute a Type 2 foreign illegality which prevents the 4th defendant relying on a bona fide purchaser for value without notice defence; accordingly judgment is entered for the traced sum with interest, costs and continuation of the Mareva injunction.
18 Sept 2023

EXCLUSIVE NETWORKS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v. WAKOON TRADING (H.K.) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1072
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV424/2022

The 2nd defendant discharged the burden of showing likely difficulty or expense in enforcing a costs order against the foreign plaintiff; the plaintiff's appeal is reasonably arguable but not so meritorious as to displace the need for security; accordingly security for costs was ordered in the reduced amount of HK$350,000 and the appeal was stayed until payment, with dismissal in default and costs awarded to the 2nd defendant.
15 Sept 2023

ALPHA & LEADER ASSOCIATES LTD v. VICTORY MEGA TRADING LTD

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2322
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA212/2021

Discharge application dismissed because defendant had a fair and reasonable opportunity to present its case at the inter partes return day hearing; even assuming a duty of full and frank disclosure applied, the evidence did not establish entitlement to discharge. New evidence post‑hearing was not admitted. On merits the plaintiff showed a good arguable case and a real risk of dissipation; balance of convenience favoured continuation. Result: interim Mareva injunction continued until trial; discharge and new evidence summonses dismissed; costs directions made.
13 Sept 2023

BARCO INVESTMENTS LTD v. WONG YAN HO (also known as GEOFFREY WONG YAN HO) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2341
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1184/2022

The judge exercised discretion and concluded the original apportionment (30% payable forthwith) and certificate for three counsel were appropriate given that preparation and overlapping issues justified attributing part of the costs of proving the underlying fraud to D6–D8 and the hearing was exceptional; hence the Variation Summons to reduce the percentage and the counsel certificate was dismissed and the Costs Order Nisi made absolute.
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.
16 Dec 2022

NELSON MARTAYAN v. HANCHENG INDUSTRIAL CO LTD

Citation

[2022] HKDC 1400
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3587/2021

Service was regular because the writ was handed to a member of staff at the defendant’s registered office and the company assumes the risk of internal handling; the defendant failed to show a real prospect of success on its defences — change of position lacked evidence of causation and bona fide purchaser is inapt in a two‑party direct recipient case and factually unsupported — therefore the Master’s order setting aside the default judgment was set aside and the garnishee order nisi made absolute.