SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. ALI CHREIF AND ANOTHER

HCMP 2817/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2817 OF 2016

________________

________________

________________

______________________________________________________

DECISION FOR CONFISCATION ORDER

______________________________________________________

1.  This is an application for confiscation by the Secretary for Justice pursuant to s.8(1)(a)(ii)(B) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Cap 455(OSCO).

2.  The first respondent is an Italian passport holder who is wanted here in Hong Kong for the offence of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of indictable offence, contrary to s.25(1) of OSCO.  A warrant of arrest was issued against him on 27 September 2013 and he remains at large to this day.  The second respondent is a company incorporated in Hong Kong which was under the complete control of the first respondent.  The first respondent through the second respondent maintained a number of bank accounts in Hong Kong.  It is the credit balances in those bank accounts that the Secretary for Justice applies for a confiscation order. 

3.  In support of the application a statement has been provided pursuant to s.10 of OSCO by Senior Inspector of Police Emyr Watkins who sets out in detail the case against the first respondent.  It is shown that the first respondent operated an email scam where innocent parties were deceived into transferring funds into the bank accounts of the second respondent.  Over a period of time large sums of funds were transferred into the bank accounts and then transferred out to various bank accounts across the world.  From September 2012 to March 2013, approximately HK$72 million had been deposited into the bank accounts of the second respondent.  Unfortunately, what remains is the sum of HK$268,940.50 which is the subject of the confiscation order.

4.  The procedure and conditions for an application of a confiscation order for an absconder are set out in SJ v Fang Jinan, HCMP 599/2016, 1 April 2016, unreported.

5.  I am satisfied that all the necessary requirements to make the confiscation order have been fulfilled.  Section 2(8) of OSCO provides that a person has benefited from the offence if he “has at any time received any payment or other reward in connection with the commission of an offence”.  From the police evidence the first respondent had received approximately HK$1.4 million through the second respondent’s bank accounts in connection with this offence which is more than the minimum amount of HK$100,000 required under s. 8(4) of OSCO.  The value of the realisable property is approximately HK$268,940.50.

6.  For the above reasons, I make the confiscation order in terms pursuant to s. 8 of OSCO.