HOUNÖ A/S v. TECKALI (HK) INDUSTRIES LTD AND OTHERS

HCA 2796/2015

[2021] HKCFI 1548

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 2796 OF 2015

_____________

_____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  The 3^rd Defendant having been given notice of the trial, chose neither to instruct lawyers to attend nor to seek leave from the Court to be represented by a director. Wu Yaodun who made the witness statement on behalf of the 3^rd Defendant was not called to give evidence at trial, and the statement is accordingly not in evidence and will not be considered by the Court.

2.  I am satisfied that the Plaintiff has proved its case against the 3^rd Defendant on unjust enrichment.  The sum of EUR9,022,000 was paid by the Plaintiff to the 1^st Defendant by mistake and was induced by fraud.  The sum of US$633,000 received by the 3^rd Defendant in its Hong Kong bank account was from the money which had been transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the 1^st Defendant’s account, which was then transferred to the 2^nd Defendant and/or the 3^rd Defendant’s accounts.  I am satisfied that there is a sufficient causal connection between the Plaintiff’s loss and the benefit of the money received by the 3^rd Defendant.

3.  None of the defences set out by the 3^rd Defendant have been established.  On the Plaintiff’s evidence, the 3^rd Defendant did not hold any licence to carry on currency exchange business in Hong Kong.  On its own case set out in its Defence, the 3^rd Defendant was either engaged in an unlawful currency exchange business in Hong Kong without a license, or otherwise assisting third parties to circumvent foreign exchange control measures on the Mainland.  On the facts pleaded in its Defence, the 3^rd Defendant should have been put on enquiry as to the legality of the transfers and exchanges it was effecting.  I am not satisfied that it would be entitled to rely on any defence of being a bona fide purchaser for value, or on a bona fide change of position.

4.  I am also satisfied that the Plaintiff has proved its case on knowing receipt and dishonest assistance.

5.  Accordingly, I enter judgment against the 3^rd Defendant for payment of the sum of US$633,000, interest and costs of the action.

6.  Orders in terms of the draft order prepared by the Plaintiff on the judgment are granted, with amendments shown in the draft.