Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mortgage fraud

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2024

AXHT COMPANY LTD v. WING WO LUNG COMPANY LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3678
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2980/2015

Where funds originated from the loan disbursed into an account controlled by the fraudster a constructive trust and tracing remedy arises, but a recipient who at the time of transfer establishes they are a purchaser for value in good faith without notice of the claimant's proprietary interest defeats the proprietary remedy; here the 10th defendant proved bona fide purchaser status (valid PSPA, valuable consideration, lack of notice at time of transfer) and change of position, so plaintiff's claims against him fail; the 3rd defendant failed to discharge its pleaded defences and plaintiff succe…
16 Mar 2023

HKSAR v. HUI TSZ HANG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 347
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC58/2022

The court upheld the sentencing judge's approach: combine the two transactions to a global starting point within the Cheung Mee Kiu band for HK$7 million, reduce for lesser sophistication and solitary offender, apply a one‑third guilty plea discount, and limit the voluntary surrender discount to a modest amount because the circumstances did not amount to genuine self‑surrender; therefore the aggregate sentence (34 and 37 months with 12 months consecutive, total 46 months) was not manifestly excessive.
4 Jul 2022

KONEW CAPITAL INTERNATIONAL LTD v. CHIU MEI LING

Citation

[2022] HKDC 656
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4449/2021

Declaratory relief was appropriately granted because the plaintiff had a real and practical interest in rectifying the consequences of fraud; the mortgage and loan agreement executed by the suspected imposter are null and void as against the defendant and the registration should be vacated; costs ordered that there be no order because both parties were victims of the same fraud.
14 May 2013

HKSAR v. LI BIJUAN

Citation

HKSAR v. LI BIJUAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC432/2012

The court held that given the magnitude of the frauds, the applicant's central role, the planning, use of forged identity and title documents and the aggravating factor of coming from the Mainland to commit the offences, the starting points and the total sentence (after one‑third reduction) were appropriate; comparison with lesser roles in HKSAR v Kong Hon Yui was inappropriate; therefore leave to appeal was refused and the 4‑year sentence was upheld.
24 Oct 2011

HKSAR v. SHIU CHI MING

Citation

HKSAR v. SHIU CHI MING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC453/2010

The court upheld the trial judge's finding that, on consideration of the primary facts in their entirety (including the implausibility of the appellant's account, the non-presentation of cheques, the pattern of repayments and the context), the only reasonable inference was that the appellant knew the purported vendor lacked title and that the transaction was a sham; consequently the conviction was safe and the leave application was dismissed.
30 Jan 2008

WONG CHE (or CHEE) SING v. WONG WAI LUNG AND ANOTHER

Citation

WONG CHE (or CHEE) SING v. WONG WAI LUNG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1392/2005

The 2nd Defendant unreasonably maintained its defence and resisted the plaintiff despite having early notice of forgery, declining straightforward verification of title, issuing demands treating the plaintiff as borrower, and engaging in third party proceedings that kept the plaintiff in litigation. Those cumulative actions constituted special or unusual circumstances justifying taxing the plaintiff's costs against the 2nd Defendant on an indemnity basis, except for the costs of the hearing on 21 January 2008 which remain on party and party basis.
5 Jun 2006

HKSAR v. CHAN YIN YAT KEN

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAN YIN YAT KEN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC331/2005

The Court held the trial was fair despite some inappropriate remarks by the judge which did not affect the overall fairness; defence counsel's conduct was within proper tactical discretion and the applicant had consented to witness decisions; accomplice evidence and documentary proof provided overwhelming evidence of guilt; therefore there was no merit in the grounds of appeal and the sentences imposed (total 7 years) were appropriate given role, attempted gain and the serious offence of perverting the course of justice.
13 Jun 1986

THE QUEEN v. LAI CHAU-CHUEN (D.1) AND ANOTHER

Citation

THE QUEEN v. LAI CHAU-CHUEN (D.1) AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC128/1986

The court held that the prosecution proved a conspiracy to defraud and that the evidence against each defendant, in particular D.3's signing of the mortgage, receipt of $100,000 and his admission regarding the true value of Lot 212 together with the surveyor having been misled to value Lot 101, made the only reasonable inference that D.3 joined the conspiracy; consequently leave to appeal against conviction was refused.