ZHOU YI v. DBS BANK (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

HCMP 1052/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1052 OF 2026

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

____________________

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________

1.  This is the second application for a Norwich Pharmacal Order (“NPO”) by the Plaintiff (“P”) for the disclosure of information on bank account, bank statements and transaction records of bank accounts held in the name of her husband Mr Cheng Gang (“Cheng”).

2.  I granted the application at the conclusion of the hearing, and these are my reasons.

3.  In P’s earlier application under HCMP 2543/2025, Deputy High Court Judge Kenneth Wong on 12 March 2026 granted a NPO in respect of bank accounts held by Cheng in Bank of China (Hong Kong) Limited (“BOCHK”) and Citic Futures International Company Limited (“Citic Futures”). As a result of the information obtained under this disclosure (“1^st Disclosure”), P now makes a similar application in respect of the bank accounts held by Cheng with DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited (“DBS”) and The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“HSBC”).

4.  Both DBS and HSBC have indicated in correspondence with P’s solicitors that subject to incorporating in the order sought their comments, they would take a neutral stance and would not attend this hearing. I understand the banks’ comments have been incorporated into the draft order enclosed with Ms Chong’s written submissions.

5.  The factual background can be briefly summarized as follows. P and Cheng are both Mainland citizens. They were married on 14 February 2017 and have 3 children. Cheng is a very successful and wealthy businessman and P a housewife. Their marriage had broken down. On 18 June 2025, P commenced divorce proceedings in Jiyuan City People’s Court of the PRC (“Mainland Divorce Proceedings” and “Jiyuan People’s Court”). Thus far, there have been 4 hearings in the Mainland Divorce Proceedings. Cheng has been orally ordered by the Jiyuan People’s Court to disclose details of his assets and financial matters. Between July to October 2025, 21 Investigation Orders had been issued upon P’s application by the Jiyuan People’s Court to investigate Cheng’s assets in PRC. The investigations so ordered cover the period from early Feburary 2017 to the date of the respective orders. An order to freeze all assets of Cheng up to RMB 300,000,000 has also been issued by Jiyuan People’s Court on 17 July 2025. Cheng has been denying he has any asset in Hong Kong.

6.  From the information and documents obtained under the 1^st Disclosure, it is revealed, among others, that Cheng maintains 2 bank accounts with BOCHK, and one account with Citic Futures.

7.  As tabulated in 4 tables in paragraphs 35 and 36 of P’s affirmation,

a. in July 2025, Cheng has transferred from his BOCHK bank accounts to a bank account in DBS held in his name a total of USD 1,545,800 and HKD 5,329,000;

b. in September 2025, Cheng has transferred a total of USD 3,000,000 from his Citic Futures account to the same DBS bank account;

c. in July 2025, Cheng has transferred HKD 3,000,000 from one of his BOCHK bank accounts to a bank account in HSBC held in his name; and

d. in January 2026, Cheng has transferred USD 1,000,000 from his Citic Futures account to the same HSBC bank account.

8.  Consequent upon such revelation, P now seeks a NPO for disclosure of the bank account(s) Cheng holds in DBS and HSBC, bank statements and transaction records from 1 January 2022 to the date of the order, which is the same period covered by the earlier NPO. With such disclosure, P can identify and trace the current whereabouts of Cheng’s such assets in Hong Kong for the purpose of the Mainland Divorce Proceedings.

9.  The principles for granting a NPO is well settled (see A Co v B Co [2002] 3 HKLRD 111; Bai Yang v The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited and Others [2025] HKCFI 3965). I am satisfied, as are required under such principles, that

a. P would very likely reap substantial and worthwhile benefit from the NPO sought;

b. the scope of discovery is not unduly wide, whether in terms of the categories of information and documents sought and of the period covered as the Jiyuan People’s Court in fact ordered investigation of Cheng’s assets from February 2017 onwards;

c. P has exhausted other proper and reasonable avenues for obtaining the information sought; and

d. there is cogent evidence that there were serious tortious or wrongful activities in the form of concealment of assets in Hong Kong by Cheng in the Mainland Divorce Proceedings which would be contrary to 《中华人民共和国民法典》第一千零九十二条, as opined in the Mainland Legal Opinion compiled by DeHeng Shanghai Law Office dated 9 June 2026 proffered by P, which stipulates :

「夫妻一方隐藏、转移、变卖、毁损、挥霍夫妻共同财产，或者伪造夫妻共同债务企图侵占另一方财产的，在离婚分割夫妻共同财产时，对该方可以少分或者不分。」

10.  Where a NPO is sought for disclosure in aid of proceedings outside Hong Kong, the jurisdiction should not be lightly exercised either by reason of comity or because there is no necessity justifying a NPO (Guangdong Shirong Zhaoye Ltd v Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corp Ltd [2022] 4 HKLRD 536 at §§8 and 15; Bai Yang v The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited and Others [2025] HKCFI 3965 at §43).

11.  As said, Jiyuan’s People’s Court issued 21 Investigation Orders to investigate Cheng’s assets. The said Mainland Legal Opinion also stated in no uncertain terms that Cheng’s foreign assets would be taken into account by the Jiyuan People’s Court. As deposed to in P’s affirmation, and shown by the extracts of the court notes (庭審筆記) of the recent hearing on 28 May 2026, Jiyuan People’s Court received the documents disclosed in the 1^st Disclosure and invited P to question Cheng thereon, which P did, not only about any assets Cheng might own in Hong Kong, but also about any he might own in Singapore. Evidently, Jiyuan People’s Court has no jurisdiction to order banks in Hong Kong to make the disclosure presently sought. I thus take the view that the consideration of comity does not lean against the granting of this NPO. In the circumstances, I am also satisfied that there is no other avenue for P to obtain information of Cheng’s assets in Hong Kong via Mainland proceedings, and thus there is the necessity for obtaining the NPO sought.

12.  In the premises, I was satisfied that I should exercise my discretion in granting the NPO as sought per the draft order, which also contains orders to pay the costs of DBS and HSBC as has been agreed between them and P. I thus so ordered at the conclusion of the hearing.

13.  I thank Miss Chong for her assistance.