Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard of proof in forfeiture proceedings

Legal area

Court

3 Jul 2025

香港特別行政區訴趙玉華

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3168
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC13/2024

Prosecution discharged its civil burden by adducing evidence (admissions, discovery of cash and drug paraphernalia) that, on the balance of probabilities, connected the seized cash and items to drug trafficking; the defence evidence was inconsistent and not credible, failing to rebut the prima facie case, therefore the court ordered forfeiture of exhibits P6, P7, P20, P22 and P21 under DDO s56(1).
1 Mar 2017

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION v. YEUNG SHEK KIN

Citation

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION v. YEUNG SHEK KIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC329/2016

Section 56(1) Dangerous Drugs Ordinance prevails over s102(2) Criminal Procedure Ordinance where specific forfeiture provision applies; the prosecution proved a prima facie case that the cash was proceeds of drug trafficking, the defendant failed to rebut that case, and therefore the cash seized (HK$13,760; HK$17,990; RMB420) is forfeited under s56(1).
14 Dec 1968

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. JOSE F. MERCADO

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. JOSE F. MERCADO
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV35/1968

The court held that forfeiture proceedings under s.17 are civil, that s.17(10)(b) admits a certified copy of the whole criminal record (including notes of evidence and the court's decision) as admissible evidence to prove a contravention (not limited to convictions), and that an acquittal in the criminal trial does not preclude admission of such record or conclusively establish absence of contravention; the matter was remitted to the magistrate to proceed accordingly.

Hong Kong Case Law

香港特別行政區 訴 趙玉華

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION v. YEUNG SHEK KIN

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. JOSE F. MERCADO

香港特別行政區訴趙玉華