SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE v. WONG CHUN KEUNG AND OTHERS

HCMP 2021/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2841

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2021 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

________________________

Application

1.  This is an application by the Secretary for Justice (SJ) for an Order that the credit balances (including interest accruing thereon) maintained in the accounts held under the names of the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants as listed in the schedule below in the total sum of HK$631,960.31 and cash of the 3^rd Defendant in the sum of HK$42,900, i.e. a total sum of $674,860.31 (the said properties), be forfeited to the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR).

2.  Schedule

Account Holder	Institution	Account Number	Credit Balance (HK$)
Wong Chun Keung (黃振強) D1-Wong	Hong Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (“HSBC)	124-109430-292	79,538.97
Lau Pui Ying (劉佩凝) D2-Lau	Hang Seng Bank	774-573950-882	499,751.74
	The Hong Kong Jockey Club	31898169	14,132.20
	PayMe (by HSBC)	D832805588	22,925.61
	Sub-total for the 2nd Defendant:		536,809.55
Ng Chi Hung (吳志鴻) D3-Ng	Back of East Asia	01513588114813	15,611.79
	Total:		631,960.31

3.  The Plaintiff SJ was represented by Mr Anthony Chan SC together with Mr Martin Ho of counsel. All three defendants were absent. It should be noted that both D1-Wong and D3-Ng had indicated they do not oppose to this application and both had asked to be excused from attending the hearing. D2 was absent though all relevant notices and papers have been served on her by Substituted Service.

4.  On 18 May 2026, upon reading the affirmations filed and hearing leading counsel for the Plaintiff, I made an Order in Terms of the application. I indicated I would hand down my reasons in writing in due course, which I now do.

Applicable law

5.  Section 13 of the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (UNATMO) Cap 575 provides for the forfeiture of certain terrorist property:

“(1) The Court may, if satisfied on an application made by or on behalf of the Secretary for Justice that any property specified in the application is terrorist property—

(a) mentioned in paragraph (a) of the definition ofterrorist property and which also—

(i) in whole or in part directly or indirectly represents any proceeds arising from a terrorist act;

(ii) is intended to be used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of a terrorist act; or

(iii) was used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of a terrorist act; or

(b) mentioned in paragraph (b) of the definition of terrorist property,

order, subject to subsection (2), the forfeiture of the property.

(2) Where the Court makes an order under subsection (1) in respect of any property, the Court shall specify in the order so much, if any, of the property in respect of which the Court is not satisfied as mentioned in that subsection.

(3) An order may be made under this section whether or not proceedings are brought against any person for an offence with which the property concerned is connected.

(4)     The standard of proof on an application under this section shall be the standard of proof applicable to civil proceedings in a court of law.”

6.  The concept of “terrorist property” is defined in s.2 UNATMO as follows: 

“terrorist property(恐怖分子財產) means—

(a)the property of a terrorist or terrorist associate; or

(b)any other property that—

(i)is intended to be used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of a terrorist act; or

(ii)was used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of a terrorist act;”

7.  A “terrorist”, “terrorist act”, “terrorist associate” and “entity” are further defined in s.2 UNATMO as follows: 

“terrorist (恐怖分子) means a person who commits, or attempts to commit, a terrorist act or who participates in or facilitates the commission of a terrorist act;

terrorist act(恐怖主義行為)—

(a) subject to paragraph (b), means the use or threat of action where—

(i)the action is carried out with the intention of, or the threat is made with the intention of using action that would have the effect of—

(A)causing serious violence against a person;

(B)causing serious damage to property;

(C)endangering a person’s life, other than that of the person committing the action;

(D)creating a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public;

(E)seriously interfering with or seriously disrupting an electronic system; or

(F)seriously interfering with or seriously disrupting an essential service, facility or system, whether public or private; and

(ii)the use or threat is—

(A)intended to compel the Government or an international organization or to intimidate the public or a section of the public; and

(B)made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious or ideological cause;

(b)in the case of paragraph (a)(i)(D), (E) or (F), does not include the use or threat of action in the course of any advocacy, protest, dissent or industrial action;

terrorist associate (與恐怖分子有聯繫者) means an entity owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by a terrorist;

entity(實體) means any body of persons (including individuals), whether corporate or unincorporate;”

Submission of SJ

8.  The SJ submitted that the said properties fall within paragraph (a) of the definition of “terrorist property” (i.e. it represents the property of a terrorist or terrorist associate) and it is intended to be used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of a terrorist act under s13(1)(a)(ii) of UNATMO.

9.  As an alternative, the SJ submitted that even if the said properties are not the defendants’, they still fall under paragraph (b)(i) of the definition of “terrorist property” (i.e. it represents any other property that is intended to be used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of a terrorist act under s13(1)(b) of UNATMO).

10.  With reference to the affirmations filed by Chan Yi Ting and Lee Tang Yiu & affidavit of Wai Chi Man Carmen, together with a large number of documents exhibited to their affirmations, the SJ submitted that D1-Wong and D3-Ng are “terrorists” and D2-Lau is a “terrorist associate” as defined in UNATMO, such that their properties fall within the definition of “terrorist property”.

11.  The SJ referred to, inter alia, the fact that both D1-Wong and D3-Ng were convicted of an offence of Conspiracy to Commit Bombing of Prescribed Objects (Bombing Charge) on their own plea, and that D1-Wong was also convicted of an offence of Conspiracy to Provide or Collect Property to Commit Terrorist Acts (Property Charge). D3-Ng was further convicted, on his own plea, of Possession of Arms and Ammunition with Intent to Endanger Life.

12.  Reference was also made to the violent activities of the Dragon Slaying Brigade (Brigade), of which D1-Wong was the leader, during the widespread protests that took place in 2019 following the introduction of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019.

13.  Reference was also made to the 12.8 Plot masterminded by D3-Ng and actively participated by D1-Wong. Briefly stated, the 12.8 Plot involved a plot to kill police officers and cause casualties and damage to property indiscriminately during a public procession organized by the Civil Human Rights Front, by using explosives and firearms. The plan was to detonate two bombs (each made with 10-20 kilogrammes of explosives) at Hennessy Road along the planned route of the public procession. Members of the Brigade would damage pro-government or China-link shops to lure the police to the scene where the bombs are placed. A gunman was also arranged to shoot at the police from height indiscriminately.

14.  Although D2-Lau was charged and found not guilty of the Property Charge after trial, the SJ referred to numerous Telegram messages exhibited and submitted that the evidence showed that D2-Lau, as a member of the Brigade, is a “terrorist associate”, who actively administered, together with D1-Wong, crowd-funding exercise in securing funds for the Brigade’s terrorist acts and for the 12.8 Plot.

15.  The SJ referred to the crowd-funding activities operated by the Fund-Raising Channels administered by D2-Lau together with D1-Wong, the messages posted on the Fund-Raising Channels appealing for funds for the operation of the Brigade and the 12.8 Plot, and the forensic accounts’ reports on the analysis of the fund-flow in the accounts of D1-Wong and D2-Lau.  

16.  The SJ summarised the position in paragraph 44 of the written submission:-

“44. In Summary:

44.1. In terms of timing, the promotional messages posted on the Fund-Raising Channel in November 2019 coincided with the upsurge of deposits made to D2-Lau’s HSB Account, D2-Lau’s HKJC Account and D2-Lau’s PayMe Account.

44.2. Between 6.11.2019 and 9.12.2019, D2-Lau’s HSB Account, D2-Lau’s HKJC Account and D2-Lau’s PayMe Account received a total of HK$1,376,449.52. After eliminating inter-transfers, the total net deposits received by D2-Lau for the aforesaid accounts during the said period amounted to HK$1,051,449.52.

44.3. It is noteworthy that in November 2019, D2-Lau only received HK$2,912.33 as salary, which was paid to her D2-Lau HSB Account.  Given the meagre amount of salary received by D2-Lau, it is more likely than not that such sum had already been spent, and all sums remaining in D2-Lau’s HSB Account represented the remaining proceeds from the crowd-funding exercise.”

17.  As for D3-Ng’s accounts, SJ made the following submission in para 47 of the written submission :-

“ 47. Based on Police investigation, there is no other identifiable source of income or assets of D3-Ng apart from the credit balances in D3-Ng’s BEA Account and the cash in the amount of HK$42,900 seized from D3-Ng’s residence. Given the costs of the arms, ammunitions and explosives involved, there is strong basis for inferring that : (a) the funds in D3-Ng’s BEA Account (which represent his only source of income and assets); and (b) the cash seized from D3-Ng’s residence are funds intended to be used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of D3-Ng’s terrorist acts.”

18.  The SJ submitted that D1-Wong and D3-Ng are plainly “terrorist” and D2-Lau a “terrorist associate” as defined in UNATMO such that their properties fall within the definition of “terrorist property”.

19.  The SJ summarised the position in paragraph 55 of the written submission :-

“55.1     For D1-Wong, he was the leader of the Brigade and was substantially involved in the terrorist acts of the Brigade, which acts were clearly carried out with the intention of causing serious violence against persons, causing serious damage to property, endangering persons’ lives and/or creating a serious risk to public safety; and such acts were intended to compel the HKSAR Government to respond to the so-called “five-demands” and for purpose of advancing the Brigade’s (and D1-Wong’s) political and ideological causes.  He also had close liaison with D3-Ng on the planning and implementation of the 12.8 Plot.  His acts in question were clearly “terrorist acts” and D1-Wong is clearly a “terrorist”.

55.2     For D2-Lau, she was a member of the Brigade and had been substantially involved, together with and under the instructions of D1-Wong, in maintaining the Fund-Raising Channel, soliciting and handling funds for the operations of the Brigade as well as the 12.8 Plot. There is clear evidence that D2-Lau acted in accordance with the instructions of D1-Wong on the administration of the Fund-Raising Channel and on collecting as well as transferring of funds raised.  She is clearly a “terrorist associate” of D1-Wong.

55.3     For D3-Ng, he was the mastermind in the planning and implementation of the 12.8 Plot: procuring arms, ammunition and explosives; arranging testing of arms and explosives; recruiting different radical dissident groups and gunman and arranging escape route.  As the evidence reveals, the 12.8 Plot went beyond ordinary protest or dissent and involved conspiracy to commit grave and serious violence against police officers and property for the purposes of compelling the HKSAR Government to respond to the so-called “five demands” and advancing political causes.  His acts constituted “terrorist acts” and D3-Ng is clearly a “terrorist”.”

20.  The SJ further submitted that the evidence clearly showed, on a civil standard of proof, that the said properties (whether they belong to the Defendants or not) are intended to be used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of a terrorist act including inter alia the 12.8 Plot immediately before their arrest and the said properties being seized.

21.  In support thereof the SJ pointed out the following acts or activities of all three Defendants in paragraph 59 of the written submission :-

“D1-Wong’s and D2-Lau’s accounts and funds therein

59.1 D1-Wong solicited for funds from individual funders and it was made clear in the relevant messages that the funds were to be used for purchase of gears or making of petrol bombs for the purpose of attacking police officers.

59.2 The first message published on the Fund-Raising Channel appealed to the subscribers to the channel for funds to support the operation of the Brigade. Messages were repeatedly posted on the channel stating that the terrorist acts that the Brigade was going to commit, including killing police officers. Video clips about the terrorist acts of the Brigade and media interviews of the Brigade revealing objectives of the Brigade were posted on the channel to urge the subscribers to provide financial assistance so that they could continue their terrorist acts. Most importantly, on the two consecutive days before 12.8 Plot, messages were posted on the channel seeking financial support for the 12.8 Plot (implicating that police officers would be killed).

59.3 There is evidence that funds solicited by D1-Wong were used to support the living or daily expenses of the members of the Brigade and to purchase gears for the terrorist acts of the Brigade. There was also discussion between D1-Wong and D2-Lau about the funds raised, during which D1-Wong told D2-Lau that a part of the funds raised had been used on the absconding plan and procuring “arms” (“軍火”). There is a strong case that the funds raised were used to finance or otherwise assist the terrorist acts of the Brigade, including the planned 12.8 Plot and it is reasonable to infer that the remaining funds raised are also intended to be used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of a terrorist act.

59.4 As mentioned above, D1-Wong’s HSBC Account and D2-Lau’s HKJC Account were provided to funders for transferring funds. All received funds on D2-Lau’s HKJC Account were eventually transferred back to D2-Lau’s HSB Account, for further transfer to D1-Wong’s HSBC Account. D2-Lau’s PayMe Account was used as a repository to receive and transfer funds solicited from the Fund-Raising Channel.

59.5 During the relevant crowd-funding period (i.e. 6.11.2019 to 9.12.2019):

(a) D1-Wong did not receive any salary payments, whereas D2-Lau only received a meagre sum of HK$2,912.33 as salary (which sum would likely have already been depleted).

(b) However, their accounts (including D1-Wong’s HSBC Account, D2-Lau’s HSB Account, D2-Lau’s HKJC Account and D2-Lau’s PayMe Account) were subject to an unusually high number of transactions, including deposits from various sources, which is: (a) inconsistent with the pervious transaction records in those accounts; and (b) suggestive of a crowd-funding pattern.

(c) There was a total net deposit of HK$714,233.24 in D1-Wong’s accounts, and a total net deposit of HK$1,051,449.52 in D2-Lau’s accounts, bringing the total sum crowd-funded to HK$1,765,682.76.

(d) As for the remaining credit balances in D1-Wong’s accounts and D2-Lau’s accounts, there is a strong case (which clearly passes the civil stand of proof as stipulated in s.13(4) UNATMO) for saying that the remaining funds in those accounts are intended to be used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of a terrorist act (i.e. to sustain the terrorist acts of the Brigade, including the planned 12.8 Plot).

D3-Ng’s account, funds therein and case

59.6 There is evidence that D3-Ng liaised with sponsor(s) for his and his group’s terrorist acts.

59.7 There is also evidence that D3-Ng provided funds to D1-Wong subsidising the latter’s procurement of protective gears and weapons, and that D3-Ng (with the financial assistance by his sponsors) reimbursed air ticket and travelling expenses of the participants of the military training in Taiwan and provide case subsidy to each of the participants.

59.8 D3-Ng has no discernible assets other than the credit balances in D3-Ng’s BEA Account.

59.9     Given: (i) the vast amount of firearms and ammunition seized at D3-Ng’s residence upon his arrest; (ii) the 10kg of ANFO subsequently seized at Wah Yan College for intended use for the 12.8 Plot; and (iii) the high cost of firearms, ammunition and explosives, there is strong basis (which at least passes the civil standard of proof as stipulated in s.13(4) UNATMO) for inferring that D3-Ng used his own available economic resources (including BEA Account and the funds therein and cash) (on top of funds from sponsors) to finance or otherwise assist the commission of D3-Ng’s terrorist acts.  D3-Ng’s BEA Account and the funds therein, the remaining funds in that account and the case seized from D3-Ng’s residence are therefore intended to be used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of D3-Ng’s terrorist acts.”

My Consideration and Conclusion

22.  Having considered the evidence placed before me, and having considered the oral and written submission of the SJ, I found that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the SJ’s application.

23.  I am satisfied that D1-Wong and D3-Ng are “terrorists” and D2-Lau is “a terrorist associate” as defined in UNATMO. The said properties are “terrorist property” under UNATMO which are intended to be used to finance or otherwise assist the commission of “terrorist acts” such that the said properties are liable to be forfeited under s.13 of UNATMO.

24.  I order that the credit balances (including interest accruing thereon) maintained in the accounts held under the respective names of the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd Defendants as listed in the schedule above in the total sum of HK$631,960.31 (plus interest) and cash of the 3^rd Defendant in the sum of HK$42,900, i.e. a total sum of $674,860.31 (plus interest), be forfeited to the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

25.  There be no order as to costs of this application.