Hong Kong Case Law

16 Jun 2020

HKSAR v. MA KWOK MING

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 993

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA511/2019

The magistrate's factual findings that the appellant failed to establish ownership of the gold slabs and failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he did not participate in or facilitate the contravention were reasonable and supported the exercise of discretion to forfeit the gold slabs and the vehicle under ss.27 and 28 of the Import and Export Ordinance; no error of law or misapplication of principle was shown on appeal.

• Forfeiture proceedings
• Onus and standard of proof
• Ownership dispute
• Definition of cargo
• Manifest requirements
• Use of cautioned statements

5 Aug 1999

HKSAR v. CHAN MING KUEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN MING KUEN

Court

Court of First Instance

Case number

HCMA530/1999

The phrase "personal use" in s.2(c) must be given a broad construction to include personal property retained for personal use even if shared with others; therefore the cordless telephone was within the s.2(c) exclusion and the conviction under s.18(1)(b) could not stand.

• Attempt to export unmanifested cargo
• Definition of cargo
• Personal property exemption
• Construction of "personal use"

LEUNG NIN v. THE QUEEN

Citation

LEUNG NIN v. THE QUEEN

Court

Court of Appeal

Case number

CACC759/1968

The Unmanifested Cargo Regulations do not apply to goods clandestinely smuggled and concealed on a ship by crew members; 'cargo' as used in the Regulations and section 5 refers to goods brought as cargo that ought to be manifested, and the legislation was not intended to criminalise concealed smuggled goods absent express provision; therefore the conviction under the Regulations could not stand.

• Unmanifested cargo
• Importation
• Definition of cargo
• Smuggling
• Absolute liability/strict liability
• Manifest requirements