CHENG SIN TUNG v. HANG SENG BANK, LTD

DCMP 2903/2025

[2025] HKDC 1272

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2903 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR DECISION

________________________

1.  This is the Plaintiff’s application against Hang Seng Bank Limited (“Bank”)  for a Norwich Pharmacal order and a gagging order. The Plaintiff’s case is that she was a cyber-fraud victim who had transferred a total of HK$46,000 into the fraudster’s account believing that she was purchasing discounted flight tickets from a well-known travel agency in Hong Kong. When she did not receive the electronic flight tickets or any receipts for payment as promised, she made enquiries and realized that the fraudster’s account did not belong to the travel agency and the advertisement posted on Facebook that she responded to was a scam.

2.  Due to an oversight on the jurisdiction issue, the Plaintiff commenced proceedings HCMP No 459 of 2025 in the Court of First Instance seeking a Mareva Injunction Order against the holder of the fraudster’s account with the Bank and an order was granted on 25 March 2025.  Subsequently, the Plaintiff issued an Originating Summons dated 16 April 2025 under HCMP No 583 of 2025 seeking a Norwich Pharmacal Order and a gagging order against the Bank.  When the matter came before DHCJ William Wong SC on 2 May 2025, the case was ordered to be transferred to the District Court as the claim amount is only HK$46,000. 

3.  This is the application before the Court today. 

4.  Having been served with the OS and by a letter dated 23 April 2025, the Bank informed the Plaintiff’s solicitors that, subject to requesting for more time to comply with the order and an usual indemnity that the Plaintiff pays its costs and expenses of complying the same, it adopts a neutral stance and seeks to be excused from attending today’s hearing. 

5.  The Plaintiff became the victim of a cyber-fraud in the following circumstances:

(1)  In the morning of 23 March 2025, the Plaintiff and her husband came across a Facebook advertisement appearing to be posted by “專業旅運Travel Expert” promoting discounted flight tickets;

(2)  The Plaintiff’s husband then clicked on the advertisement that led to a dialogue in WhatsApp with an account registered with a Hong Kong telephone number +852 9491 3512;

(3)  Texts were then exchanged between the Plaintiff’s husband and the imposter holding himself/herself out as customer service of “專業旅運Travel Expert” during which the Plaintiff and her husband confirmed to purchase five sets of round-trip business class tickets between Hong Kong and Melbourne by Cathay Pacific, each set at HK$9,200;

(4)  An invoice bearing the logo of  “專業旅運Travel Expert” was sent to the Plaintiff’s husband which provided the payment method as follows:

“Payment method: [HSBC] [Alipay HK] [PayMe] [Hang Seng Bank][1]

Hang Seng Bank: (024)

Bank Account: 933698045888

Company Account Name: TRAVEL EXPERT LTD

(“Fraudster’s Account”)”

(5)  The imposter requested that the transfer of funds be separately made for each set of tickets in the sum of HK$9,200 and further provided a demonstration of payment via PayMe and Alipay;

(6)  Between 15:00 – 15:18 on 23 March 2025, the Plaintiff made five separate payments to the Fraudster’s Account in the total sum of HK$46,000 by way of FPS through the Plaintiff’s PayMe account;

(7)  No electronic tickets or receipts for payment were forthcoming as promised and the Plaintiff and her husband began to make enquiries with the real Travel Expert Limited, both via WhatsApp and by telephone call to its branch office, only to learn that the Fraudster’s Account is not a bank account belonging to Travel Expert Limited; and

(8)  In the evening, the Plaintiff’s husband texted the imposter to cancel the bookings and demanded refund; the imposter initially replied that refund would be arranged the next day but never heard from him/her thereafter.

6.  The Plaintiff immediately reported to the police.  As mentioned above, she also obtained a Mareva Injunction Order to have the Fraudster’s Account frozen on 25 March 2025. 

7.  The applicable principles for granting a Norwich Pharmacal order are well-settled and can be found in A Co v B Co[2] :

(1)  There must be cogent and compelling evidence to demonstrate that serious tortious or wrongful activities have taken place; where fraud or similar serious allegations are made, the degree of proof must correspondingly be high;

(2)  It must be clearly demonstrated that the order will or will very likely reap substantial and worthwhile benefits for the plaintiff; where a tracing claim is likely to be made there must be a serious possibility that the discovery sought must either allow the plaintiff to preserve what may well be his assets or realistically lead to the discovery of such assets; and

(3)  The discovery sought must not be unduly wide; an order must be specific and restricted to those documents or those classes of documents that are necessary to enable the plaintiff to preserve or discover assets.

8.  Applying the above legal principles to the facts of the present case, I am satisfied that a Norwich Pharmacal Order should be granted. 

9.  This is a clear case of fraud and there is before me cogent and compelling evidence that the Plaintiff has been defrauded to deposit HK$46,000 into the Fraudster’s Account.  The information sought would enable the Plaintiff to ascertain the identity of the parties involved in the scam and to allow her to preserve what may well be her assets or realistically lead to the discovery of such assets.  I am also satisfied that the discovery sought is not unduly wide.  Apart from those in relation to the opening of the Fraudster’s Account, the discovery relates to transactions starting from 23 March 2025 to the date of the order.  

10.  As to the gagging order, Mr Wang, who appeared for the Plaintiff, rightly conceded at the hearing that the Plaintiff has not made out a strong case that would justify the granting of a gagging order which is an exceptional remedy.  I agree.

11.  I would therefore make an order in terms of the draft order as amended at the hearing and further amended to spell out that apart from documents relating to the opening and the holder of the Fraudster’s Account, documents sought are for the period from 23 March 2025 to the date of the order.