Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Restraint order

Legal area

Court

15 Jan 2025

WANG SHUITING AND OTHERS v. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 352
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL687/2022

The applicants must pay the respondent's costs. The ordinary rule that costs follow the event applies; the applicants discontinued after their primary arguments had been finally rejected by the Court of Final Appeal in Tam CFA, there were no exceptional circumstances warranting departure from the rule, and therefore the court exercises its discretion to order the applicants to pay the Commissioner's costs, to be taxed if not agreed.
8 Jan 2025

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SHIN DONG KI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 65
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV29/2023

The Court of Appeal set aside the Judge's decision and discharged the restraint order because the ex parte application and supporting materials failed to particularise a specified offence coherently (the particulars of the Hong Kong charge did not match the Korean predicate relied upon), the Secretary could not show on the material before the court that R1 had derived a recoverable benefit from the specified offence as required by OSCO (the tax central to the Korean scheme had been repaid and R1 acted as nominee), and therefore the statutory preconditions for a restraint order were not satisf…
22 Feb 2024

YOUNG CRYSTAL LTD AND OTHERS v. HANG SENG BANK LTD

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 525
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1710/2021

The Statement of Claim, as drafted and after operation of the consent unless order, is incoherent and fails to particularise the crucial fraud/misrepresentation allegations (paras 32–35 having been struck out by the unless order); the deceit, Banking Ordinance and Basic Law claims are inadequately pleaded and unsustainable on the present materials; P3's Basic Law claim is totally unsustainable and is dismissed; P1 and P2 are given one final opportunity to apply for leave to file a fresh Statement of Claim under a strict timetable; costs of the summons ordered on an indemnity basis to defendan…
31 Aug 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. SHIN DONG KI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1021
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP46/2023

The Court of Appeal held that leave to appeal should be granted only on the narrow point whether the US$10,000,000 paid into R7's account constituted proceeds/benefit under section 2(6)(a) of OSCO (Ground 2), because that issue has arguable merits. The court rejected the respondents' arguments on absconding, abuse of process/double jeopardy, and double recovery/proportionality as having no reasonable prospect of success, endorsing the CFA's broad construction of "absconded" and the discretionary nature of double jeopardy stays.
16 Aug 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM KIT-I

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 24
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2023

The principal dispute was the substantive question whether refusal to grant a confiscation order discharged the restraint order (Question 1); the civil/criminal characterisation (Question 2) was procedural and secondary; issue-based strict apportionment was rejected but a modest deduction was warranted because SJ was not wholly successful; accordingly the costs order nisi is varied so Tam pays 80% of SJ's costs of FACV 12/2022 plus costs of the proceedings below, to be taxed if not agreed; no order as to costs in FACC 4/2022, FACC 1/2023 and FACV 2/2023.
29 Mar 2023

SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM KIT-I

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 7
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC1/2023

On proper contextual and purposive construction of OSCO s2(16A) and s15(5)(b), an application for a confiscation order is only 'concluded' for the purposes of automatically discharging a restraint order when the court has completed the statutory process of inquiry and determination and the purpose of the RO is exhausted; a judge's refusal to make a CO on a ground that does not eliminate the prospect of a CO (here, a finding that the defendant had not 'absconded') does not conclude the application and does not discharge the RO. Furthermore, appeals against refusal to discharge an RO are civil…
29 Mar 2023

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM KIT-I

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 7
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACC4/2022

On a proper contextual and purposive construction of OSCO, the judge's decision not to make a confiscation order on the basis that the respondent had not absconded did not conclude the Secretary for Justice's application for a confiscation order within the meaning of section 2(16A)(a) and therefore did not discharge the restraint order by operation of section 15(5)(b); the RO remains in force while its purpose of securing assets for a prospective confiscation order subsists.
29 Mar 2023

THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. TAM KIT-I

Citation

[2023] HKCFA 7
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV12/2022

On proper contextual and purposive construction of OSCO, a restraint order is not automatically discharged merely because a judge declines to make a confiscation order for a reason that does not dispose of the confiscation application on its merits; section 2(16A)(a) applies where the court has decided the confiscation application after the statutory inquiry process or where the order is satisfied, and only then does section 15(5)(b) operate to discharge the RO. Appeals against refusal to discharge an RO are civil in nature.
26 Jan 2023

BUER GUDE v. CHEN KEEN

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 232
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1554/2021

Given the Intervener's existing proprietary injunction and the Restraint Order and the pending proceedings in HCA 2218 that will determine beneficial ownership, the fair and efficient course is to stay/adjourn the Plaintiff's application for a charging order absolute until HCA 2218 is determined; indemnity costs were ordered against the Plaintiff for costs incurred after 29 August 2022.
12 Dec 2022

TAM KIT I v. THE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1819
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV103/2022

For the reasons given in the March Judgment, this Court reissued its judgment de bene esse and allowed the appellant's appeal; the Judge's order refusing discharge of the OSCO Restraint Order was set aside and the Court declared that the OSCO Restraint Order was discharged upon conclusion of the Confiscation Application on 10 August 2016; costs were ordered nisi to be in the cause of the Secretary for Justice's appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.