The following are the commonly cases and legislations frenquently quoted and used in fraud tracing and recovery litigation in Hong Kong.

Marive Injunction

  • Section 21L of the High Court Ordinance
  • Nico Constantijn Antonius Samara v Stive Jean Paul Dan [2019] HKCFI 2718: Hong Kong court has granted a Mareva injunction to cover bitcoin.
  • Practice Direction 11.2 for Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders
  • Ninemia Maritime Corporation v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschoft GmbH (The Niedersachen) [1983]1 WLR 1412:  Objective test of real risk of dissipation
  • Akai Holdings Ltd. v. Ho Wing On & Christopher & Accolade Inc. (Intervener) unrep., HCMP1718, 1720 and 1722/2009; [2009] H.K.E.C. 1585:  The court may grant a Mareva injunction against assets held by a third party, which the defendant has no legal or equitable right to, but nonetheless has substantive control over

Proprietary Injunction

  • Pacific Rainbow International Inc v Shenzhen Wolverine Tech Ltd [2017] HKEC 869:  No need to prove a real risk of dissipation of assets by the defendant as is required for a Mareva injunction

Freezing of Assets by Police

  • 25A(2)(a), Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455):  No Consent Letter issued by Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (‘JFIU’)
  • Interush Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2015] 4 HKLRD 706:   financial institution to decide whether to freeze the suspected bank account or follow their customers’ instruction despite their suspicion and the disclosure since LNC is not a court order.
  • Tam Sze Leung and others v Commissioner of Police [2021] HKCFI 3118:   JFIU No Consent Letter regime beyond the powers conferred on Police by the Organised Serious Crimes Ordinance Cap 455 (OSCO). 

Disclosure Order

  • Under s. 21 of the Evidence Ordinance (Cap. 8):  banker’s trust order
  • Practice Direction 11.2 for Mareva Injunctions and Anton Piller Orders:  disclosure order affliated to injunciton order, to order the defendant to disclose his assets, including the value, location, and details of all these assets.
  • Edward Arthur Banner and another v Great Union Electronic Technology Limited, HCA 514/2013):  indemnity costs to banks
  • Asiya Asset Management (Cayman) Ltd v Dipper Trading Co Ltd [2019] 3 HKC 145: an application for disclosure against a bank should be made inter-partes or, where urgency can be shown, on an
    ex-parte application at least on notice.
  • A Co v. B Co [2002] 3HKLRD 111:  court’s consideration in the exercise of its discretion for the grant of a bank disclosure order.
  • Unicredit Bank Austria AG v Dragon Wise Trading Ltd (2013) 2 HKLRD 169: implied undertaking for use of the disclosed documents.

Summary Judgment

  • O. 14, r. 1(2)(b), Rules of the High Court (Cap. 4A) (‘RHC’): fraud exception
  • Zimmer Sweden AB v KPN Hong Kong Ltd [2016] 2 HKC 282, [2016] 1 HKLRD 1016 (CA)): fraud exception
  • Laerdal Medical Ltd v. Hong Kong Haocheng International Trade Ltd (21/06/2017, HCA2193/2016
  • Universal Capital Bank v Hongkong Heya Co Ltd [2016] 2 HKLRD 757

Service Out of Jurisdiciton

  • Order 6, rule 7 and Order 11 rule 1 of the Rule of the High Court (Cap.4A): Service of Writ
  • Robertson (a firm) v Thomas Joseph Dillon, JR, DCCJ 2849/2006:  leave for service of documents subsequent to Writ out of jurisdiction by ordinary post.

Default Judgment

  • Baslokka Invest AS v Lambert and Sons Incorporated & Ors [2016] HKCU 1261:  default judgment can be obtain while Mariva Injunction subsists.
  • Guaranty Bank and Trust Co v Zzzik Inc Ltd, (unreported, HCA 1139/2016, 18 July 2016): declaratory relief