Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Realisable property

Legal area

Court

13 Sept 2023

香港特別行政區訴李兆平

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1280
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCC221/2021

Court held on the balance of probabilities that the defendant had benefitted from the specified offences; assessed the value of the benefit at HKD12,324,514 (after deducting returned amount) and determined the defendant's realisable property at the time of the order to be HKD1,577,222.64 (bank accounts 1–5 plus withdrawn bail money). Accordingly a confiscation order for HKD1,577,222.64 under OSCO was made with a six-month payment period and default imprisonment of two years four months to be served concurrently with the existing 48‑month sentence.
6 Jul 2022

香港特別行政區訴陳港文及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCA 984
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC197/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the trial judge correctly excluded the seized goods from proceeds, properly assessed realisable assets after rejecting unsupported claims of third‑party ownership, and there was no arguable error of law or principle; A1 withdrew his appeal and A2 presented only misunderstandings of the statutory calculation which do not merit leave.
1 Apr 2016

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FANG JINAN

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. FANG JINAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP599/2016

The court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the respondent had absconded, reasonable steps and publication notices had been made, the respondent could have been convicted of dealing with property representing proceeds of an indictable offence and had received at least HK$1.24 million from victims; the only realizable property was the last bank credit balance; accordingly the statutory conditions under section 8 OSCO were met and the court ordered confiscation of the account's last credit balance (EUR 9,974.94 and US$250.11) to be paid to the Registrar of the High Court.
30 Jan 2014

RE RAFAT ALI RIZVI AND OTHERS

Citation

RE RAFAT ALI RIZVI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2557/2010

The court held that the Indonesian court had jurisdiction to try the defendants in absentia under Indonesian law and the s28(1) criteria were satisfied (order in force, notice under Indonesian law, enforcement not contrary to interests of justice); dual criminality was satisfied; "realisable property" for enforcement of the external confiscation order is confined to property specified in the external confiscation order (Schedule 2 s5(1)(a)); accordingly the court registered and ordered enforcement of the external confiscation order in respect of specified Hong Kong accounts and appointed the…
12 Jul 2013

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. MALE YE ZHIQIANG AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. MALE YE ZHIQIANG AND OTHERS<br>
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV195/2012

The appeal was dismissed because the Interested Party failed to establish a bona fide, evidentiary claim to the restrained funds; the funds in Account A were realisable property under the effective control of the convicted defendant who 'benefited' under OSCO, and section 19(6) bars taking into account any competing obligations that would conflict with satisfying a confiscation order, so variation of the Restraint Order was refused.
5 Sept 2011

HKSAR v. LO WAI MAN AND OTHERS

Citation

HKSAR v. LO WAI MAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC411/2009

The Court affirmed that the prosecution proved the listed items were realisable property for the 1st and 2nd applicants; the 1st applicant failed to discharge his onus regarding Beverly Villas and HSBC safe deposit box assets; however, where property was the matrimonial home held in joint names the court held the spouse is prima facie entitled to a 50% beneficial interest and absent evidence of knowledge or other displacement that half is not realisable — thus half of the proceeds of Parc Royale and Casa Paradizo belong to the respective wives and only the applicants' 50% shares are subject t…
3 May 2007

HKSAR v. JAVID KAMRAN

Citation

HKSAR v. JAVID KAMRAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC400/2004

The Court upheld the judge's findings that the applicant had benefited from specified drug trafficking offences, that the value of proceeds was $1,190,264, and that the irresistible inference of effective control justified treating funds in the Zeeshan account as realisable property of the applicant; the certified recoverable amount $523,831.20 and the default imprisonment term (18 months) were lawful and the delay did not produce unfairness, so the application to appeal the confiscation order was dismissed.
29 Sept 2005

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAN LAM CHUAN AND OTHERS

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAN LAM CHUAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV197/2005

The appeal is allowed because the 1st Respondent failed to demonstrate any beneficial interest in Promail's bank accounts and therefore lacked locus to seek the variation; accordingly the lower court's order releasing $472,000 from Promail was wrongly made and must be set aside (alternatively, even if locus existed discretion would not favor release given evidence that the funds were proceeds of fraud and substantial creditors existed).
6 Jun 2001

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEE CHEUNG WAH

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. LEE CHEUNG WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP113/2001

The court found all statutory conditions for making an order against an absconder were satisfied on the evidence and s.5 statement; on the balance of probabilities the respondent could have been convicted and had benefited from drug trafficking in the aggregate amount of $6,946,000, and the value of realisable property at the relevant time was $1,272,440.87; accordingly a confiscation order may be made for $6,946,000 and a certificate must be prepared stating the amount that might be realised.
23 Feb 1999

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOW SUI KWONG

Citation

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. CHOW SUI KWONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3109/1998

All statutory preconditions in s.3 were satisfied on the balance of probabilities: Chow absconded, could have been convicted, and benefited from drug trafficking; applying s.4(3) assumptions and the concealed income analysis the court assessed proceeds at HKD 449,308, identified realisable property totaling HKD 139,089, and therefore ordered issuance of a certificate and the making of confiscation orders accordingly.