HKSAR v. NGAI TAI MING

DCCC 807/2018

[2019] HKDC 1059

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 807 OF 2018

____________

____________

RULING

1.  This is my ruling on the prosecution application to forfeit the private car ME 5557 (item 2); the car key for ME 5557 (item 8); HK$56,218 (items 3 & 4) and RMB 470 (item 5) pursuant to sections 56(1)(a) and (b) of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance[1].

2.  On 21 May 2019 the defendant pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in 16.50 grammes of a solid containing 15.00 grammes of cocaine, contrary to section 4 of the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance and was sentenced on 24 June 2019 to 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.   

3.  In summary at around 8:30 p.m. on 13 June 2018 the police intercepted the defendant when he approached private car ME 5557, which was parked inside the car park at On Yam Shopping Centre in Kwai Chung.  ME 5557 was registered in the defendant’s name.

4.  Upon search of ME 5557 the police found a plastic bag in a concealed compartment underneath the tray in front of the arm rest by the driver’s seat.  The plastic bag contained seven plastic bags each containing ten smaller plastic bags inside which was the cocaine[2].

5.  Under caution the defendant admitted the cocaine belonged to him and that he intended to sell the cocaine to others.  

6.  The street value of the cocaine was $21,037.

7.  These facts were admitted by the defendant.

8.  Inside the bag carried by the defendant the police found three mobile phones; HK$56,218; RMB 470 and a key to a different car.  The defendant did not agree all the money was found in his bag and says part of the money was found in ME 5557.  

9.  In support of the application for forfeiture of ME 5557 and the key the prosecution relies on the facts admitted by the defendant that the cocaine was found in a concealed compartment underneath the tray in front of the arm rest by the driver’s seat.

10.  In support of the application for forfeiture of the money the prosecution called two witnesses DPC 13814 (PW1), the arresting officer and DPC 16395 (PW2), the exhibits officer. 

11.  The defendant applies for return of ME 5557; the car key and the money save for $11,000-$12,000 which the defendant says was for “drug”.    

12.  The defendant gave evidence and called his elder brother.

13.  Evidence was heard on 21 May and 22 May 2019.  The application was adjourned to 3 June for submissions.  After hearing submissions, I adjourned to 6 June for ruling.  

14.  In cross-examination the defendant said he purchased ME 5557 ten months prior to his arrest for $618,000 which he paid by monthly instalments of around $20,000.  The defendant was still paying for ME 5557 when he was arrested.  

15.  Before delivering my ruling on the application for forfeiture I asked to be addressed on whether ME 5557 was bought by the defendant on hire purchase and if so whether the defendant was the legal owner of ME 5557. 

16.  The court was informed that the defendant did buy ME 5557 on hire purchase and that his friend had continued to make the payments.  Copies of the relevant papers were said to be kept in ME 5557. 

17.  I was satisfied that the finance company was entitled to be heard before any forfeiture order was made.  I therefore adjourned the application to 24 June 2019 and directed the prosecution to serve notice of the hearing on the finance company.

18.  On 24 June 2019 Mr Tse on behalf of OCBC Wing Hang Bank Limited appeared and opposed the application for forfeiture of ME 5557.  The hearing was further adjourned to 7 August 2019 for all papers to be served on the bank and for the bank to file a skeleton submission together with authorities. 

19.  The bank filed their submission on 19 July 2019.

The law

20.  If there is prima facie evidence that ME 5557 and the money was used in the commission of or in connection with or received or possessed as the result or product of an offence under the Dangerous Drugs Ordinance or a drug trafficking offence within the meaning of the Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance, the defendant/applicant bears the legal burden to persuade the court, on the balance of probabilities, why ME 5557 and the money should not be forfeited[3].

21.  The prosecution case is that the drugs having been found in a concealed compartment underneath the tray in front of the arm rest by the driver’s seat ME 5557 was used in the commission of the offence[4] and that all the money having been found in the defendant’s bag was either used in the commission of or in connection or received or possessed as the result or product of an offence[5]. 

22.  The defendant’s case is that all the money was not found in his bag and was not connected to drugs.  The defendant asks the court not to forfeit ME 5557 and only forfeit $11,000-$12,000 which he says was found in ME 5557. 

23.  The bank claim they are the owner of ME 5557 under a Hire Purchase Agreement[6] and had no knowledge dangerous drugs were kept in ME 5557 and did not participate in or facilitate the illegal activity[7].

Evidence

Admitted evidence

24.  The defendant admits that ME 5557 was registered in his name and that the drugs were found in ME 5557 in a concealed compartment underneath the tray in front of the arm rest by the driver’s seat[8].

25.  Admitted in evidence are photographs of ME 5557 and the drugs (exhibit P1)[9].  The police did not take photographs of the defendant’s bag or the money[10]. 

Prosecution evidence

26.  In summary at 1945 hours on 13 June 2018 DPC 13814 saw the defendant approach ME 5557[11]. After intercepting the defendant DPC 13814 searched the defendant and found that he was holding the car key to ME 5557.  Another key to a different car was found in the defendant’s bag.

27.  In cross-examination DPC 13814 identified the defendant’s bag, photographs of which have been marked as exhibit D1[12].

28.  DPC 13814 then guarded the defendant while witnessing DPC 16395 search ME 5557. 

29.  At 2326 hours DPC 13814 conducted a further search on the defendant in the Kwai Chung Police Station.  DPC 13814 testified that nothing suspicious was found on the defendant’s person but in his bag HKD 56,000 odd, around RMB 700 and three mobile phones were found.  DPC 16395 was also there when DPC 13814 found the money in the defendant’s bag.

30.  The money was then counted. After counting the money DPC 13814 handed over the money and the phones to DPC 16395. 

31.  DPC 16395 testified that after the search he seized three mobile phones; HKD 56,218 and RMB 470 found on the defendant.    The money was then placed inside three tamper evident property envelopes (exhibits P3, P4 and P5). 

32.  The tamper evident property envelopes were later sealed by DPC 16395 at 01:55 hours the next morning.  After being shown the tamper evident property envelope containing the RMB DPC 13814 said he had wrongly remembered the amount of the RMB and that the correct amount was RMB 470.

33.  In cross-examination both DPC 13814 and DPC 16395 disagreed that part of the money was found inside ME 5557.  When asked if he found any cash in ME 5557 DPC 16395 replied that he found some coins.

Defendant’s evidence

Money

34.  In summary the defendant testified that around HKD11,000-12,000, comprising of $1000 notes, $500 notes and $100 notes, was found in ME 5557 under the arm rest shown in photograph 5, exhibit P1.  Asked where the money came from the defendant replied “drug”. 

35.  A little over HKD1,000, comprising of $50 notes, $20 notes and $10 notes, was inside the tray found to the right of the steering wheel shown in photograph 4, exhibit P1.  The defendant said this money was used for filling up his Octopus card.

36.  HKD40,000, all $500 notes,was inside the zip compartment of the bag shown in photographs 6 & 7, exhibit D1.  The defendant said that he borrowed the money from a friend because his mother needed money to fix her teeth. 

37.  In cross-examination the defendant said that his friend was called Lau Yung Por who he had known since primary school; no record was kept of the loan; that his mother had told him several days before he was arrested that she needed to have her teeth fixed in early July and that she needed a new set of false teeth which would cost more than $40,000. 

38.  The RMB and HKD4,000-5,000 were kept inside the defendant’s wallet, which was inside his bag. 

39.  The RMB was obtained when visiting his girlfriend in the Mainland. 

40.  HKD4,000-5,000 was withdrawn from the bank for daily usage such as buying fuel.  The defendant could not remember what else the money was for other than to buy things and said that it is normal to have several thousand dollars in a wallet.

41.  There were also some coins kept inside the bag but the defendant could not remember how much.

42.  Apart from theHKD11,000-12,000 under the arm rest the defendant said that no other money seized by the police was drug related. 

43.  The defendant said that after he was intercepted the police first seized the phones but did not search him or his bag. 

Cocaine

44.  The defendant said that he put the drugs in ME 5557 on the morning of the day he was arrested at which time ME 5557 was also parked in the On Yam Shopping Centre carpark. 

45.  In cross-examination the defendant agreed that one of the reasons the drugs were concealed in ME 5557 was so that no one passing by could see the drugs straightaway.

46.  The defendant explained that he put the drugs in ME 5557 because he did not want to take them home.  The defendant said that he intended to leave the drugs in ME 5557 temporarily for several hours and did not intend to deliver the drugs. 

47.  When asked why he went to the vicinity of ME 5557 just before he was arrested, the defendant replied that he had just finished his meal at home and went down to the street to his car. 

48.  Asked by Mr Cheung what his purpose was in going to his car the defendant said that he was going to move ME 5557 so that he could get the red car, which is shown in photograph 1, exhibit P1 parked behind ME 5557. 

49.  In cross-examination the defendant said he purchased ME 5557 ten months prior to his arrest for $618,000 and purchased the red car, which was also in his name, two months before his arrest for $100,000.  ME 5557 was paid by monthly instalments of around $20,000 whereas as the defendant said that because the red car was old he paid the full purchase price when he bought the red car.  The defendant was still paying for ME 5557 when he was arrested.  

50.  Asked by Mr Ma what his employment was in the ten months before his arrest the defendant replied many occupations and said that on average he earnt around $30,000 per month.

Ngai Tai Chin

51.  In summary the defendant’s elder brother testified that in late May his mother told him that her teeth were loose and that she felt discomfort.  The elder brother said that he would take her to see a dentist. 

52.  The elder brother made a phone call to book an appointment with the dentist.  When the elder brother called he was just told there needed to be a check-up first and was not told about the fee structure. 

53.  Originally the defendant said he would go with his mother, however because the defendant was arrested the elder brother accompanied his mother to see the dentist.   The dentist said that the teeth had been used for too long and suggested to replace the false teeth.  The dentist said this would cost around $40,000.  The brother told the defendant about the cost when he visited him.  

OCBC Wing Hang Bank Limited

54.  The bank called Mr Hong Kam Fai, a collection officer with the bank.  Mr Hong produced the Hire Purchase Agreement (exhibit C1) to establish that the bank was the owner of ME 5557. 

55.  The defendant purchased ME 5557 from Ming Fung Auto Car Limited (“the dealer”) for $680,755. After deduction of the deposit a fixed finance charge of $75,000 was added making the total cost of the hire $675,000.

56.  The bank only became aware in June 2019 that the defendant had been arrested and ME 5557 had been detained after the police contacted the dealer who in turn informed the bank.  Until the bank were informed by the dealer they had no idea about the situation of ME 5557.    

57.  By letter dated 17 June 2019 (exhibit C2) the bank accepted the repudiation of the agreement by the defendant by reason of persistent default in payment and demanded payment of the outstanding balance under the agreement. 

58.  Mr Hong explained that upon recovery of ME 5557 the bank would sell the car by auction.  After payment of expenses and the outstanding balance of the hire purchase agreement any surplus would be returned to the defendant.  If the proceeds of the sale were insufficient the bank would seek to recover the balance from the defendant. 

59.  In answer to the court when asked when the defendant first made default Mr Hong explained that the defendant had made late payment in July, August, November and December 2018 and in February, March, April and May 2019.  Notwithstanding the bank had terminated the agreement late payment was still accepted in June and July 2019.  Mr Hong was not sure whether payment had been processed for August 2019.

Discussion

60.  I have carefully considered the oral and written submissions of Mr Ma, Mr Cheung and Mr Mui[13].

Forfeiture of the money

Was all the money found in the defendant’s bag or was some found in ME 5557?

61.  I reject the defendant’s evidence that part of the money was found in ME 5557.  I do not find the defendant’s evidence credible.

62.  Mr Cheung submits that the evidence of DPC 13814 and DPC 16395 that all the money was found in the bag is unreliable and full of inconsistencies, in particular the inherent improbability that the police having declared arrest on the defendant would allow the defendant to continue carrying the cash seen in his bag; whether the EO (DPC 16395) was inside the room when the defendant was searched; whether the AO (DPC 13814) witnessed the sealing of the tamper evident property envelopes (exhibits P3, P4 and P5); why the defendant did not sign the tamper evident property envelopes and the wrong information filled out on the tamper evident property envelopes[14].

DPC 13814

63.  In cross-examination DPC 13814 said that after intercepting the defendant he conducted a search of the defendant.   DPC 13814 said that apart from a car key the defendant’s own personal property was inside his bag.  DPC 13814 said he opened the bag.  Asked what he saw in the bag DPC 13814 replied that he had a vague recollection that there was money and phones in the bag. 

64.  In answer to the court DPC 13814 said that after searching the bag at the scene he gave the bag back to the defendant. 

65.  Whilst one might expect the police having seen money and mobile phones in the bag to have seized the bag at that time, the fact the police did not seize the bag and only conducted a full search of the bag at the police station does not cause me to doubt DPC 13814’s evidence that all the money was found in the defendant’s bag.

66.  DPC 13814 testified that both he and the defendant were present when DPC 16395 sealed the tamper evident property envelopes (exhibits P3, P4 & P5) and that he signed, the defendant signed and DPC 16395 signed the three envelopes. 

67.  DPC 13814 was then shown the three tamper evident property envelopes.  When pointed out that only DPC 16395 had signed DPC 13814 said he had remembered wrongly. 

68.  Considering that DPC 13814 was giving evidence over eleven months after the arrest of the defendant it is not surprising that he wrongly remembered who signed the three envelopes. 

69.  The fact that DPC 13814 remembered wrongly does not cause me to doubt his evidence that all the money was found in the defendant’s bag. 

70.  In cross-examination when asked why he did not sign the three tamper evident property envelopes DPC 13814 said that he only found the money but did not seize the money and that DPC 16395 seized and dealt with the exhibits.

71.  DPC 13814 was then referred to his witness statement in which he states he seized the money.  In examination-in-chief DPC 13814 also said he seized the money. 

72.  DPC 16395 was responsible for sealing the three tamper evident property envelopes. DPC 16395 signed as both the seizing officer and the sealing officer, his signature covering both boxes on the three tamper evident property envelopes. 

73.  The fact that DPC 13814 did not sign the three tamper evident property envelopes does not cause me to doubt his evidence that all the money was found in the defendant’s bag.  

DPC 16395

74.  DPC 16395 testified that he was inside the room when DPC 13814 searched the defendant whereas in cross-examination DPC 16395 said he was present but outside the room.  Whether DPC 16395 was inside or outside the room does not cause me to doubt the evidence that all the money was found in the defendant’s bag.

75.  In cross-examination DPC 16395 explained that the defendant did not sign on the tamper evident property envelopes because money was not drugs; that the defendant need only sign if the exhibit was drugs and that no acknowledgement was obtained from the defendant because the money was counted in front of him.

76.  Whilst surprising that the defendant was not asked to sign any acknowledgment that the money had been found in his bag, the fact the defendant did not sign the tamper evident property envelopes does not cause me to doubt the evidence all the money was found in his bag.  

77.  In cross-examination DPC 16395 agreed that he had made a mistake on the three tamper evident property envelopes when he wrote that the money was seized at On Yam Estate at 2030 hours when in fact the money was found in the defendant’s bag when the bag was searched in the police station by DPC 13814 at 2326 hours. 

78.  In cross-examination DPC 16395 explained that he wrote down the location of the arrest and the time of arrest because he thought that the money had already been seized at the time DPC 13814 arrested the defendant. 

79.  When asked by the court why he thought the money had already been seized DPC 16395 replied that he had not communicated with DPC 13814 and therefore there was a misunderstanding because when he was the AO in other cases he would have seized the money and things related to the case would normally be seized at the time[15]. 

80.  The fact that DPC 16395 made a mistakeon the three tamper evident property envelopes about when and where the money was seized does not cause me to doubt the evidence that all the money was found in the defendant’s bag.  

81.  I accept the evidence of DPC 13814 and DPC 16395 that all the money was found in the defendant’s bag and none in ME 5557.

82.  I accept the evidence of DPC 16395 given in cross-examination that he found only coins in ME 5557 and that he arranged for an officer from the Identification Bureau to take photographs and directed him what photographs to take, including photographs of the cash seen in ME 5557. 

83.  Photograph 7 shows the coins found in ME 5557.  This is the only photograph showing money found in ME 5557.  Admitted in evidence is that the photographs, exhibit P1, are the only photographs taken in the case[16].

84.  I am satisfied so I am sure that all the money was found in the defendant’s bag.  In reaching this finding I have carefully considered everything said on behalf of the defendant by Mr Cheung, including that both DPC 13814 and DPC 16395 conveniently had no recollection of how the money was packed inside the defendant’s bag.  Nothing said by Mr Cheung causes me to doubt that all the money was found in the defendant’s bag. 

Forfeiture of the money

85.  Mr Cheung submits that there is no evidence that the money had anything to do with the dangerous drugs seized and that the prosecution have failed to identify the nexus between the money and any form of illicit activity[17].

86.  There is no direct evidence that the money was the proceeds of drug trafficking or is in any other way connected to a drug offence. 

87.  The sum of money was substantial.  This was a very large amount of cash to be carrying on a Wednesday evening in Kwai Chung when at the same time the defendant happened to be trafficking in dangerous drugs worth $21,037, accompanied by three mobile telephones, which somewhat surprisingly the prosecution have not sought to be forfeited[18].

88.  I am satisfied this is prima facie evidence that the money was used in the commission of or in connection with or received or possessed as the result or product of an offence.

$40,000

89.  Mr Cheung submits that the defendant’s evidence that $40,000 was a loan from a friend to pay for his mother’snew false teeth is corroborated by the evidence of his brother and therefore the evidence of the defendant should be preferred[19].

90.  I have no hesitation in rejecting the defendant’s evidence that $40,000 was a loan from a friend to pay for his mother’snew false teeth.  I agree with Mr Ma that the evidence of the defendant is contradicted by the evidence of his brother[20].

91.  Whilst the brother confirmed that their mother needed a new set of false teeth which would cost around $40,000, the evidence of the brother was clear that the cost of the new set of false teeth was only known after the defendant was arrested.

92.  As summarised earlier the brother testified that when he booked the appointment for his mother to see the dentist he was not told about the fee structure; because the defendant was arrested he accompanied his mother to see the dentist when he was told by the dentist that the cost would be around $40,000 and that when he visited the defendant he told him about the cost[21].  

93.  In cross-examination the elder brother said that the check-up was in June or July which was after the defendant was arrested and that he told his brother about the cost when he visited his brother in Lai Chi Kok. 

94.  In addition, in cross-examination the defendant said that he had been given the HKD40,000 by his friend that morning.  In answer to the court, after confirming that he lived with his mother, the defendant said that he did not leave the money at home with his mother because he just happened to forget to put the money at home[22]. I do not find credible the defendant’s evidence he just forgot to leave the money at home. 

$1,000

95.  I do not find credible the defendant’s evidence he kept around $1,000 in ME 5557 for filling up his Octopus card.

$4,000-$5,000

96.  I do not find credible the defendant’s evidence he had $4,000-$5,000 in his wallet for daily usage.  Apart from fuel the defendant could not remember what the money was for. 

97.  I do however accept that a small amount of money may have been kept in his wallet for daily expenses. 

RMB 470

98.  I accept that the RMB may have been obtained when going to China.  

99.  I am satisfied that there is no realistic possibility the majority of the money found in the defendant’s bag was for reasons other than drug dealing.  I am satisfied the possession of such a large amount of money indicates an ongoing dealing in drugs[23].

100.  The prosecution has satisfied the court that the requirements of section 56 have been met.  Apart from the RMB and a small amount of money for daily expenses the defendant has failed to persuade the court, on the balance of probabilities, why the money should not be forfeited.  I find no grounds to exercise my discretion not to order forfeiture. 

101.  I order the sum of HKD 55,000 to be forfeited and the sums of HKD 1,218 and RMB 470 to be returned to the defendant. 

Forfeiture of ME 5557 and the car key

102.  The summary of facts admitted by the defendant that the cocaine was found in ME 5557 in a concealed compartment underneath the tray in front of the arm rest by the driver’s seat is prima facie evidence that ME 5557 was used in the commission of the offence.

103.  On the defendant’s own evidence, he used ME 5557 to store the cocaine because he did not want to take the cocaine home and in cross-examination agreed that one of the reasons the cocaine was in a concealed compartment underneath the tray in front of the arm rest by the driver’s seat was so that passers-by could not see the cocaine[24].

104.  This is also prima facie evidence to show that ME 5557 was used in the commission of the offence.

105.  The prosecution has satisfied the court that the requirements of section 56 have been met. 

106.  Mr Cheung submits that there is no evidence that the defendant intended to use ME 5557 to transport the drugs and that he was only storing the drugs temporarily[25]. 

107.  In support Mr Cheung refers to HKSAR v Shum Wah Le, where the court gave the benefit of the doubt to the defendant and declined to make the order for forfeiture notwithstanding that the defendant agreed to deliver drugs for another person and used his private car to transport the drugs and store two electronic scales[26].

108.  Mr Cheung submits the court should also exercise its discretion against ordering forfeiture of ME 5557. 

109.  In HKSAR v Tam Kwok Lun, referred to the parties by the court, the Court of Appeal upheld forfeiture of a private car used to transport drugs which had been concealed in the boot of the car[27]. 

110.  The defendant having used ME 5557 to store the cocaine in a concealed compartment underneath the tray in front of the arm rest by the driver’s seat, I find that the defendant has failed to persuade the court, on the balance of probabilities, why ME 5557 should not be forfeited.  

OCBC Wing Hang Bank Limited

111.  The defendant is not however the legal owner of ME 5557.  I accept the evidence of Mr Hong that OCBC Wing Hang Bank Limited are the legal owner of ME 5557 under a hire purchase agreement. 

112.  I accept the evidence of Mr Hong that the bank had no knowledge of the situation of ME 5557 prior to being told by the dealer in June 2019 that ME 5557 had been detained by the police.  Although the prosecution does not need to prove the bank were complicit or negligent I note that it has never been asserted by way of evidence or submission that the bank was complicit or negligent. 

113.  Mr Mui submits there being no negligence on the part of the bank asks the court not to forfeit ME 5557 but to order the return of ME 5557 to the bank unconditionally[28].  In the alternative Mr Mui submits that the court can consider returning ME 5557 to the bank conditionally[29].

114.  Mr Ma submits that by ordering forfeiture this would act as a deterrent to serious illegal activity and that the bank would suffer no hardship, the failure to repay by reason of forfeiture would mean only financial loss to the bank which is part of the business risk the bank takes in entering into hire purchase agreements. 

115.  Mr Si on behalf of the defendant makes no submission with regard to the claim made by the bank.

116.  I accept that the bank is not at fault.  Complicity is not however a precondition to the discretion to forfeit[30]. To return ME 5557 to the bank unconditionally may result in any surplus from the proceeds of sale of ME 5557 being given to the defendant. 

117.  In my view such an order would defeat the object of the legislation of deterring illegal activities and undermine the finding made by the court that the defendant has failed to persuade the court, on the balance of probabilities, why ME 5557 should not be forfeited.  

Conditional return

118.  Although payments under the agreement were made on behalf of the defendant while the defendant has been on remand the defendant has now been convicted and sentenced to serve 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.  On the making of a forfeiture order it would be highly unlikely that the defendant would repay the outstanding sum or have the means to pay.  A forfeiture order would therefore result in substantial financial loss to the bank. 

119.  In the circumstances I am satisfied a conditional return to the bank whereby the defendant does not benefit from the sale of ME 5557 would alleviate the harsh impact which an order for forfeiture would have whilst at the same time deterring serious illegal activity, the defendant no longer having use of ME 5557 which he had purchased in 2017 and for which he made payments under the hire purchase agreement[31].

120.  In the course of discussion Mr Mui has addressed the court on the conditions to be imposed in the event the court is minded to order a conditional return.  Whilst Mr Ma opposes the return of ME 5557 to the bank in the event a conditional order is made Mr Ma has agreed with Mr Mui on the terms of a conditional return. 

121.  I am broadly in agreement with the conditions suggested by Mr Mui.  I order the private car ME 5557 and the car key be returned to the bank on the following conditions:

1.   Within 14 days after the expiry of the appeal period or determination of any appeal against the order of conditional return to the OCBC Wing Hang Bank Limited (“the bank”), whichever is later, the legal representative of the bank shall collect ME 5557 and the car key from the police;

2.   Within 2 months from collection of ME 5557 from the police the bank shall conduct a sale of ME 5557 by way of public auction or private tender with the proceeds of sale being paid into the account of Oldham, Li & Nie, solicitors for the bank;

3.   Within 14 days of receiving the proceeds of sale Oldham, Li & Nie shall produce a summary report listing out the sale proceeds, expenses of the sale and the outstanding amount under the hire purchase agreement and serve a copy on the police;

4.   Within 7 days of the receipt of the summary the police shall inform Oldham, Li & Nie whether they have any objection;

5.   Within 7 days of receipt of no objection from the police Oldham, Li & Nie shall release the proceeds of sale to the bank and any surplus, after deduction of the expenses of the sale and the outstanding amount under the hire purchase agreement, shall be paid to the Government. 

6.   Failure to comply with condition 1 ME 5557 shall be forfeited.  Failure to sell ME 5557 in compliance with condition 2 ME 5557 shall be returned to the police and be forfeited.

122.  An order in terms is made with regard to the disposal of all other exhibits in the application for disposal of exhibits dated 8 April 2019.