Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Market manipulation

Legal area

Court

16 Apr 2026

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. LUI MAN WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 2140
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1450/2025

The court found the SFC had established a prima facie case under s.213 against D2, D4, D5, D9, D11 and D14, there was an appreciable risk of dissipation of their assets, and interim injunctions restraining dealings in the specific Hong Kong assets identified in the Revised Proposed Order up to the maximum sum of HK$394,067,589 would be desirable and have utility under s.213; ancillary disclosure orders for all Hong Kong assets over HK$50,000 were not necessary and were refused.
23 Mar 2026

SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. TAM CHUNG WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1610
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA215/2025

On the evidence (primary trading data, expert Hekster report, contemporaneous WhatsApp messages and documentary records) the SFC established a good arguable case that D1 (ringleader) and related defendants D3, D6 and D16 aided and abetted contraventions of s.300 SFO; there is a real risk of dissipation given undisclosed assets and conduct; existing RNs/ROs/LNCs do not cover undisclosed assets; the balance of convenience favours interlocutory injunctive relief under s.21L HCO and s.213 SFO; no cross-undertaking in damages was required from the SFC.
6 Feb 2024

NEW SPARKLE ROLL INTERNATIONAL GROUP LTD AND ANOTHER v. SZE CHING LAU AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 419
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA123/2024

The court granted the interlocutory injunction in terms of Paragraph 1 against the 1st defendant because the plaintiffs raised a serious question to be tried with uncontradicted evidence, damages were likely inadequate, and the balance of convenience favoured preserving the status quo to prevent an alleged illegality that could be irreversible; the summons was dismissed as against the 2nd defendant for lack of evidence implicating it.
30 Oct 2020

YANG TONG YUAN v. CHINA FUND SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2412/2019

Leave to intervene was granted under s385 because the actions for the proceeds of share sales plainly 'concern' matters provided for in the Ordinance, the Commission has an interest by virtue of its functions, intervention is in the public interest, and there are reasonable grounds to fear dissipation or collusion such that intervention and a stay are necessary to protect potential enforcement and disgorgement remedies.
30 Oct 2020

RAN MAOXIU v. CHINA FUND SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2410/2019

Leave to intervene was granted because the Actions 'concern' matters provided for in the relevant provisions of the SFO, the Commission demonstrated a functional interest and that intervention was in the public interest, the Financial Secretary had been consulted, and there were reasonable grounds to fear dissipation or collusive litigation warranting intervention and a stay pending investigation.
30 Oct 2020

LIANG YUYU v. CHINA FUND SECURITIES LTD

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2749
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2411/2019

Intervention under s.385 SFO was permitted because the dishonest cheque actions concerned matters within the relevant provisions of the SFO, the Commission demonstrably had an interest by virtue of its functions, consultation with the Financial Secretary occurred, intervention was in the public interest to prevent dissipation of suspected proceeds and to guard against collusive or inadequately defended litigation, and the court exercised its discretion to allow intervention and order a stay pending investigation.
14 Mar 2014

HKSAR v. LI JIALIN

Citation

HKSAR v. LI JIALIN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC457/2012

The Court held that 'price' in s.296(1) of the SFO is to be measured by the Stock Exchange's 'nominal price'; nominal price is precise, readily calculable, incorporates the last traded price and order book indications, and is the appropriate metric to determine whether trades that do not change beneficial ownership had the effect of increasing price; applying that metric the applicant's transactions increased the nominal price and the convictions are safe.
13 Jun 2011

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. TSOI BUN

Citation

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. TSOI BUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA451/2010

The deputy magistrate's failure to set out material findings and the grounds of his determination in the Case Stated was an error of law that defeated the statutory appeal process; the deputy magistrate's absence from judicial office (including refusal to be re‑appointed after expiry of appointment) falls within s.118(1)(f) and rendered amendment impossible; there is good cause to order a trial de novo and to reverse the acquittal.
23 Dec 2010

HKSAR v. FU KOR KUEN, PATRICK AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKSAR v. FU KOR KUEN, PATRICK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC179/2010

The Court upheld the judge's primary findings that the applicants' repeated circular trading at the same prices produced a false or misleading appearance of active trading; the Woollin virtual‑certainty test for intention was correctly applied and, alternatively, the applicants were reckless; the deeming provision and statutory defence did not negate conviction; convictions were affirmed but original sentences were excessive and reduced to the substituted total sentences ordered by the Court of Appeal.
5 Oct 2010

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. TSOI BUN

Citation

THE SECURITIES AND FUTURES COMMISSION v. TSOI BUN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA451/2010

The magistrate failed to articulate analysis of undisputed primary facts and permissible inferences required by Leung Chi Kin; the High Court ordered under s109 Magistrates Ordinance that the magistrate amend the case stated to set out his reasoning and findings of fact and inferences, and directed that if reappointed he provide the amended case stated within 60 days of reappointment.