Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Forensic accounting

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2023

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. CHEN LI-JUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1538
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP36/2021

On the agreed facts in the Carecraft schedules the business and affairs of NAH were conducted in a manner involving defalcation, fraud, misfeasance and/or other misconduct under s214(1)(b)-(d) SFO; the 8th, 10th and 11th Respondents were partly responsible through acts or omissions (failure to supervise, exercise independent judgment and to investigate serious unexplained transactions); accordingly disqualification orders were justified and proportionate: 8th respondent 3 years; 10th respondent 20 months (with carve-outs for five named companies); 11th respondent 20 months (with agreed carve-…
2 Jun 2022

YSG (YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2022] HKFC 114
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15288/2015

The Court rejected the Wife's allegation of hidden/dissipated assets for lack of reliable forensic evidence and timeliness; accepted SJE valuations (including Singapore properties and wine); found net matrimonial assets approx HK$248.19M; applied the sharing principle with no departure from equal division; ordered sale of the two Singapore properties with proceeds divided equally; awarded the Wife a capital adjustment (reduced to HK$53,500,000) payable by the Husband in staged lump sums; ordered child maintenance of HK$140,000/month (HK$70,000 per child) with specified reductions during natio…
1 Feb 2021

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. HWH HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 265
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2943/2015

The court declined to order expert evidence on Delco's proposed question 3A (market steps and practice for procuring a buyer for the CB) because the proposed evidence did not show a recognised body of specialised knowledge, risked making assumptions, was unnecessary for the court to determine the contractual standard of 'best endeavours', and would have little probative value. The court granted the specified forensic accounting and financial instruments valuation expert directions set out in the judgment, ordered costs of expert directions to be costs in the cause, and adjourned the third par…
1 Feb 2021

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 265
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3040/2015

The court directed forensic accounting and valuation expert evidence on specified questions but refused Delco's proposed question 3A on market practice because the proposed evidence was not shown to be within a reliable expert field, was unnecessary for contractual interpretation of the best endeavours obligation, and would not materially assist the court; costs of the expert directions were ordered in the cause and the third‑party disclosure application against USUMHK was adjourned with directions for affirmations and submissions.
1 Feb 2021

DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v. CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 265
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2939/2016

The court refused Delco's proposed expert question on market practice for procuring a buyer for the CB (question 3A) because the proposed evidence did not fall within a recognised body of expert knowledge likely to assist the court, was unnecessary to decide the contractual issue of best endeavours and would have limited probative value; other expert directions as set out were ordered and costs of the related summonses were ordered in the cause; third party disclosure applications were adjourned to permit CT and USUMHK to file affidavits and submissions.
16 Apr 2020

CHIN KAM CHIU v. FTI CONSULTING, INC AND OTHERS

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 611
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1347/2019

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was struck out because (a) absence of a practising certificate did not render the forensic report or evidence unlawful or disqualify the witness as an expert, (b) the pleaded facts did not show the defendants were the prosecutor or that prosecution lacked reasonable and probable cause or was actuated by malice, (c) allegations of fraud lacked requisite particularity, and (d) certain defendants had no pleaded involvement; the application for an RPO was refused as disproportionate.
17 Oct 2019

SINGASIA HOLDINGS LTD v. 劉新生

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2555
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW257/2019

The court found on the evidence that the Company was solvent and that the proposed allotment and transfers would preserve or enlarge assets for creditors; accordingly it granted validation for all transfers of fully paid shares since 28 August 2019, validated the proposed allotment of 250,000,000 shares for HK$13,000,000, validated payment of solicitors' fees up to specified caps (HK$150,000 for the allotment and HK$100,000 for litigation/advice) and validated ordinary business expenses as pleaded, but refused validation for forensic accounting fees because the necessity could not be assessed…
12 Feb 2019

L 對 Y

Citation

[2019] HKFC 31
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC195/2014

The court determined the matrimonial pot totalled HK$2,600,772.66; the wife’s overall entitlement was set at 46% and the husband at 54% based on contributions and post‑separation conduct; the husband had concealed business profits and two ledger items totalling HK$1,306,917 were treated as hidden cash thereby forming part of his assets; allegations that the wife had misappropriated HK$1,048,033 were rejected; the appropriate practical remedy was to transfer the matrimonial home (valued HK$1,200,000) to the wife within six months, rescind the interim maintenance order and require repayment of…
30 Nov 2016

CYYC v. TVKT

Citation

CYYC v. TVKT
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14649/2014

Applying Order 24 r 7 and proportionality, the court ordered limited further disclosure where respondent had not answered (order to lodge forensic accountant report and answer specified questions) but dismissed numerous other disclosure requests as disproportionate or irrelevant to the FDR stage; respondent must answer Q24.2.1 and Q115 within 14 days and Q17.2 within 14 days of receiving the forensic report (in any event by 24 Dec 2016); costs split with respondent to pay half (certificate for senior counsel) and penal notice endorsed.
31 Oct 2016

LSH v. WLS

Citation

LSH v. WLS
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11001/2014

The court held that the historic value of Listco was not relevant to the petitioner’s current matrimonial asset pool because he no longer held/control Listco and asset assessment is at the hearing date; audited accounts and Listco valuation were not required beyond what the SJE will value for Privateco; however transactions and transfers from August 2011 to affiliated companies and family members (which may lead to a chain of inquiry about dissipation) are relevant and must be disclosed. The court therefore granted disclosure limited to Questions 31 and 32 commencing August 2011, dismissed re…