DFC HOLDINGS, LLC v. OUHI CO LTD

HCA 801/2025

[2025] HKCFI 4280

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO 801 OF 2025

_________________

_________________

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________

1.  This is the hearing of an application by the Plaintiff for records kept at six banks of addresses or contact details of 11 intended defendants who hold accounts at the respective banks. The application is made under s.21 Evidence Ordinance Cap. 8 which provides that a judge may order copies of entries in a banker’s record to be taken if it is shown that there is a probability that the record will contain materials relevant to proceedings.

2.  In the present case, the Plaintiff is an American company to whom fraudulent emails were sent, causing funds to be transferred to a company in Hong Kong. The company in Hong Kong is the existing Defendant in this action. A Mareva Injunction has been made against the Defendant company.

3.  Earlier Orders made by the court have resulted in the Defendant company’s bank (CITIC) making disclosure of records which showed that the funds in question had been transferred to 11 individuals holding accounts in six other banks.

4.  The Plaintiff wishes to pursue these 11 account holders for the return of the funds, but is unable to serve proceedings against them as it is not aware of their addresses. None of them holds shares or is a director in the Defendant company. Hence, the application for records of their addresses or contact details which, in the ordinary course of business, would be kept by their banks in their records.

5.  The application is made ex parte. A number of authorities have held that service on the account holders is not required under the Evidence Ordinance. I bear in mind that the 11 individuals have not been served, nor has notice been given to them, e.g. by advertisements in newspapers. However in the circumstances of the fraud shown in the evidence, I am satisfied that such service or notice would not be appropriate. The banks have been served but have not appeared, although some of them have replied to the Plaintiff’s solicitors.

6.  I raised three issues with the Plaintiff’s solicitors at the hearing. First, the application was made by Summons filed on 31 July 2025. I raised the issue of delay as CITIC had disclosed the transfer of funds to the various accounts on 23 June 2025, more than a month earlier. There is no satisfactory explanation for the delay. However, there is no evidence that the delay would have prejudiced the account holders or the banks.

7.  A second issue I raised related to a point taken in a letter dated 3 September 2025 from the solicitors of Airstar, one of the banks, that the type of documents sought is not specific enough. I think it would be more precise to add “account opening documents and account updating documents disclosing” before the words “the address(es) and all contact details [etc]”.

8.  Third, I noted that in para. 8 of the Summons, there is no expiry date in the non-disclosure order, unlike in the previous orders made by the court in these proceedings. Ms Wong suggested that a date two months from today should be inserted, and I so order.

9.  Finally, I have made amendments in relation to the costs.

10.  Save as amended above, I am satisfied that an order under s.21 Evidence Ordinance would be appropriate and I would make an order in terms of the revised draft Summons as amended.