Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Tracing of proceeds

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2026

CHINA MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC AND OTHERS v. WU XIAODONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 276
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3391/2016

The court found on the balance of probabilities that Wu, Tsang and Zhu orchestrated sham FISH and SPR acquisitions, procured forged documentation and concealed related‑party control of Supreme Well; they fraudulently breached fiduciary duties, conspired to misappropriate CMED funds and knowingly carried on business for a fraudulent purpose; substantial sums traced to Supreme Well and onward to nominee entities and individuals were received dishonestly or with unconscionable knowledge, entitling CMED and CMED Tech to equitable compensation, damages, restitution and proprietary remedies against…
27 Oct 2025

BIZSTAR GLOBAL LTD v. CHINA ON SECURITIES LTD (Formerly known as CHINA FUND SECURITIES LTD)

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5122
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA68/2020

On the face of the RASOC the plaintiff established a strong and obvious proprietary claim: the placing agent owed fiduciary/trust duties, breached them by unauthorised disposal of the shares, and the net placing proceeds were traceable into the defendant's DBS account; the defendant filed no defence and did not attend, and the SFC did not oppose the orders so long as other claims were abandoned and its Section 213 proceedings were protected — accordingly the court entered default judgment, declared the 1st Defendant holds HK$55,522,800 on trust for the Plaintiff, ordered payment/transfer with…
10 Oct 2025

KOZE INVESTMENTS, LLC AND ANOTHER v. FANTUNE INTERNATIONAL (HK) CO., LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4786
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA419/2025

Because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient due diligence and therefore came to equity with unclean hands, and because D1 has no other available assets, the court exercised its discretion: it refused to vary the Mareva injunction into a proprietary-cum-Mareva injunction but allowed D1 to have incurred and billed legal expenses paid from the ICBC account up to and including the filing of its defence subject to a ceiling of HKD 1,200,000 with liberty to apply and restoration for review; the Variation and Amendment Summonses were dismissed and costs reserved.
30 Jul 2025

ANZ COMMODITY TRADING PTY LTD v. EXCELLENCE RAISE OVERSEAS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCA 701
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV48/2023

The Court upheld the trial judge’s factual findings that the warehouse receipts were forged and that the transactions formed a coordinated fraud; it held the plaintiff’s sums were traceable to the monies received by ERO, JA and HE and that, given the nature of the scheme, rescission was unnecessary for a proprietary remedy; accordingly constructive trusts and restitutionary relief were available and the appeal by ERO, JA and HE was dismissed.
27 Apr 2021

NICO CONSTANTIJN ANTONIUS SAMARA v. STIVE JEAN PAUL DAN also known as STEVE JEAN PAUL DAN, STIVE JEAN PAUL DAN and STEVE JEAN PAUL DAN

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1078
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2332/2018

The proprietary injunction was granted because the plaintiff demonstrated a serious issue to be tried, effective tracing of sale proceeds to assets in Hong Kong, and that the balance of convenience and justice required preservation of the status quo; the defendant's evidence was materially unsatisfactory, disclosure was incomplete and raised risk of dissipation, and the defendant failed to justify withdrawal of frozen funds for living or legal expenses; costs consequently awarded to the plaintiff with a summary assessment.
5 Oct 2020

CHEUNG SAI LON v. CHEUNG SAI HA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2551
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2218/2019

On the pleaded facts the plaintiff has a strong and obvious proprietary case entitling him to a declaration that House 72 was held on trust for him and to vesting of title and delivery of possession; however the claimed monetary sums for unauthorised withdrawals, missing rental income and FF Proceeds were not claims for liquidated demands within O.19 r.2 and therefore default judgment for those sums was refused and those issues were ordered for trial and assessment with directions for disclosure and expert evidence.
9 Dec 2015

BANCO DEL AUSTRO, SA v. REGAL PROSPER TRADING LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

BANCO DEL AUSTRO, SA v. REGAL PROSPER TRADING LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA477/2015

The judge accepted the documentary bank records tracing US$1,968,230.25 into the 4th defendant and the subsequent transfer of US$219,794 from the 4th defendant to the 20th defendant on 21 January 2015 as incontrovertible and sufficient to establish an arguable case and risk of dissipation; the defendant's factual and evidential challenges were without substance; accordingly the interlocutory Mareva injunction and preservation orders (with associated disclosure) were continued against the 20th defendant and costs awarded to the plaintiff.
10 Dec 2007

HANG SENG BANK LTD v. LAU CHING CHE t/a NAM YAT HONG and as KWONG ON TRADING HONG AND OTHERS

Citation

HANG SENG BANK LTD v. LAU CHING CHE t/a NAM YAT HONG and as KWONG ON TRADING HONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2480/2007

The court discharged paragraphs 2.6.2 and 2.8 because evidence showed the internal transfers were not made on behalf of other persons and those paragraphs were inapplicable, but continued paragraphs 2.6.1 and 2.7 because the plaintiff demonstrated a real prospect that the discovery would assist in tracing and preserving the stolen funds, the information is statutory and readily available, the order is not unduly onerous and D1 is protected by the plaintiff's undertaking in damages.
13 Feb 2004

NOKIA FRANCE SA v. IBERICATEL 38 SL AND OTHERS

Citation

NOKIA FRANCE SA v. IBERICATEL 38 SL AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3487/2003

The Court found the Plaintiff's tracing raised serious questions that proceeds of the alleged Ibericatel fraud reached the Defendants' Joint Account and that the Defendants' refusal to identify Mainland buyers prevented proper testing of their bona fides; there was no material non-disclosure by the Plaintiff at the ex parte stage; given the serious issues and real risk of dissipation the Mareva injunctions should continue unvaried until trial or further order.