Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Disposal of exhibits

  • 30 Jul 2015

    HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC266/2014

    On the evidence and the jury verdict the $52,000 used to purchase the Rolex watch were proceeds derived from the sale of stolen goods; accordingly the watch came into possession in connection with the offence under section 102(1)(a) and the person entitled to the monies and the watch is the victim Yang Gengjie, so the court ordered delivery of the watch to Yang Gengjie under section 102(2)(a).

  • 30 Jul 2015

    HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND OTHERS

    Citation
    HKSAR v. WONG KA FAI AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCC354/2014

    Where money received as payment for involvement in handling stolen goods is shown to be proceeds of the crime, property subsequently purchased with that money falls within s102(1)(a) as having come into possession in connection with the offence and the court may, under s102(2)(a), order delivery of that property to the person entitled (the victim).

  • 12 Aug 1997

    HKSAR v. LAM SHING FAI and Others

    Citation
    HKSAR v. LAM SHING FAI and Others
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA128/1997

    The court held that s.48 of Cap.109 is penal and must be strictly construed; the phrases "used" and "made use of" in s.15(1) and s.48(2) require direct use in the commission of the offence and do not extend to items merely facilitating patronage; karaoke equipment were not directly used to commit sale/possession offences and therefore were not liable to forfeiture under s.48; accordingly the magistrate had jurisdiction under s.102 Cap.221 to order return of the items to lawful owners and to impose ancillary conditions; s.102(6) did not preclude the order because Cap.109 did not apply.