Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Internet fraud

Legal area

Court

16 Sept 2024

HKSAR v. WONG MING CHUN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 871
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC31/2024

Leave to appeal was granted because there were reasonably arguable grounds that the overall sentence (a notional starting point of 7½ years reduced to 5 years) might be excessive and that sentencing errors as to starting points, totality and aggravation could have produced an inflated final sentence; accordingly the applicant is entitled to appellate consideration and legal aid for that appeal.
16 Sept 2024

HKSAR v. WONG MING CHUN

Citation

[2024] HKCA 871
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC32/2024

Leave to appeal was granted because there are reasonably arguable grounds that the overall sentence may be manifestly excessive and that errors of principle or fact (starting points, grouping for totality, and uplift for commission within one month) warrant appellate consideration; the court must scrutinise the final sentence rather than the precise route taken to reach it.
13 Dec 2023

IMRAN, HUMZAH v. HONGKONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1781
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2410/2023

Given cogent evidence of an online fraud, the necessity of specific information (account number, current balance and last known address) to enable tracing and commencement of effective civil proceedings, and the narrowed scope of disclosure which is not unduly wide, the court granted the Norwich Pharmacal order in the terms of the amended draft order dated 13 September 2023.
3 Apr 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHUNG PUI-KIT, BILLY

Citation

[2023] HKCA 496
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR9/2022

The Court held that the respondent's internet-enabled credit-card scheme was sufficiently large-scale, sophisticated and persistent to require a significantly higher starting point than applied by the District Court; after applying a full one-third reduction for a timely guilty plea and a further specific discount for substantial assistance to the police, and accounting for time already served, the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and substituted with an overall term of 3 years' imprisonment, with the sentence on Charge 2 concurrent.
21 Sept 2018

LOANDEPOT.COM, LLC v. YINGCAI TECH LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2172
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA950/2015

On the evidence the judge found the 7th defendant carried on a bona fide business, received the contested USD279,171.60 in the ordinary course as payment for goods, and did not have actual or constructive notice of Loandepot's prior proprietary interest; the facts known to her (including receipt via remitting agents/underground banking) did not give reasonable cause to suspect the transaction so as to require further inquiries, therefore she was a bona fide purchaser for value without notice and the plaintiff's claim failed.
5 Mar 2018

HKSAR v. SO KA WAI

Citation

[2018] HKCA 114
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC243/2017

The application for leave to appeal was refused because there was no reasonably arguable error in the sentencing judge's exercise of discretion: the starting points for both offences were within reasonable limits given the gravity, duration, victim count and planning; the judge was entitled to infer the laundering monies were proceeds of the fraud and therefore to order a substantial part of the laundering sentence to run consecutively subject to the totality principle, so no arguable ground for interference existed.
4 Jan 2018

SAHARA INVESTMENT GROUP PRIVATE LTD v. LIU ZHIJIA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 16
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCL9/2016

The court found Liu liable because his inconsistent, demonstrably false explanations supported an inference of knowing participation in the fraud; YYL was held liable to restitute US$1.3 million received by mistake but there was insufficient evidence to establish that YYL participated in the fraud; accordingly judgment was entered for quantified sums with interest and costs and the existing Mareva injunction was extended until satisfaction of the judgment.
12 Apr 2013

EDWARD ARTHUR BANNER AND ANOTHER v. GREAT UNION ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

EDWARD ARTHUR BANNER AND ANOTHER v. GREAT UNION ELECTRONIC TECHNOLOGY LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA514/2013

The court granted the disclosure orders against Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited and Hang Seng Bank Limited for the period 1 January 2013 to the date of service, required plaintiffs to pay the banks' costs of the application and of compliance on an indemnity basis to be assessed (and on a gross sum basis by paper disposal before the master), allowed 28 days for compliance and copies without inspection, and refused to order security for costs of $35,000 because the sum was not a realistic reflection of likely costs and the plaintiffs had acted responsibly and appeared to be victims of interne…