LI WEI WONG v. PANG GUEI HUA AND OTHERS

HCA 494/2018

[2018] HKCFI 2626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 494 OF 2018

______________________

______________________

_____________________

D E C I S I O N

_____________________

1.  This is an application under section 20 of the Evidence Ordinance where the plaintiff seeks an order against the respondent, a well-known bank in Hong Kong, for disclosure of account details and transaction information of a bank account abbreviated as “the intermediary account” in the papers.  The respondent has indicated that it takes a neutral position in the present application. The plaintiff and the respondent have reached an agreement as to the terms of the order I should make if I am satisfied that an order is justified.

2.  The plaintiff is a resident of Canada who claims to be the victim of an obvious fraud.  Her case is that she has been induced by a fraud on the part of a person named Chen Sen, whom I will call Mr Chen, to pay a total of 500,000 CAD into an investment scheme.  It appears that the plaintiff has never met Mr Chen.  Mr Chen however gained her trust by prolonged conversations on WeChat. The money was paid by two payments on 21 and 25 September 2017 into an account in the name of the 1st defendant with the respondent in Hong Kong.  Mr Chen has since disappeared and it appears that there was no investment scheme after all.  The matter was reported to the police and the plaintiff gathered from the police that the money had gone from the 1st defendant’s account into the accounts of the 2nd and 3rd defendants, both with the respondent bank.

3.  The plaintiff therefore commenced the present proceedings against all three defendants but it appears that only the 2nd defendant is taking an active part.  The 2nd defendant, in very brief terms, says that she received the monies paid into her account legitimately through an arrangement with an entity by the name of W T China (HK) Limited, which I will call “W T China”.  She has also provided evidence to the effect that she has received a total of HK$2,598,180 between 22 September and 27 September 2017 from W T China.  It should however be noted that the 2nd defendant’s evidence is that she was a cleaner employed by W T China and that she had supplied her account for their use.

4.  On 6 April 2018, Deputy High Court Judge Blair made an order that the respondent do disclose certain information about accounts with the respondent in the name of the three defendants.  One of the conclusions expressed by the learned deputy judge was that he was not satisfied that the 2nd defendant had provided a full explanation of the receipt of funds.  As a result of the aforesaid order, the plaintiff was supplied with a variety of information by the respondent.  Among other things, it shows that, two sums, each in the amount of 250,000 CAD paid by the plaintiff into the 1st defendant’s account, were received on 22 and 26 September 2017.  They were shortly thereafter converted into Hong Kong dollars and transferred into another account held with the respondent by some unknown person, that is, the intermediary account.  Both the 2nd and 3rd defendants had received monies from the intermediary account during the material period of 22 to 27 September 2017.  It is also apparent that the 2nd defendant had received large amounts of money, on the plaintiff’s calculations, totalling some HK$41 million odd from the intermediary account.

5.  I am satisfied that the following details of this intermediary account are plainly relevant to the plaintiff’s claim, at least part of which is proprietary in nature.  First, the identity and contact details of the accountholder would be relevant to whether any of the present defendants are involved in this account or whether there are further persons who may be involved in these transactions and may have acted in conjunction with the present defendants.  Secondly, the details of the fund flows through this intermediary account would also generate a much fuller picture as to what has happened to the possibly traceable proceeds of the plaintiff’s monies and hence plainly relevant to the tracing exercise within the present action.

6.  I further accept that in the present circumstances, when the plaintiff does not know the identity of the accountholder of the intermediary account, it is not necessary for the papers in this application to have been served on the accountholder.  I am likewise satisfied that even after bearing in mind the caution that the authorities have reminded me of, it is right to make the order as sought by the plaintiff, and, as noted above, the terms of an appropriate order have been agreed to by the respondent. I therefore accede to the application to make the order in terms of the draft order submitted to me.