On 18 March 2021, our Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice, Ms. Heidi Chui, was invited to be one of the speakers of the webinar themed “International Arbitration- The Path to Success- Drafting the Arbitration Clause Right Through to the Hearing” by the Western Returned Scholars Association (WRSA).

During the 2-hour panel, Ms. Chui and the guests explored issues arising from international arbitration with particular focus on drafting dispute resolution clauses, how the firms in China can effectively control arbitration cost and risk, and the preparation of international arbitration cases. Ms. Chui also shared her arbitration experience and practical guidance with the audience, helping them to understand international arbitration from different perspectives.

For more information, please contact our partner Ms. Heidi Chui (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com).

Our Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice Ms. Heidi Chui, Senior Associate Mr. Kyle Lo, and Associate Mr. Jensen Chang shared the latest regulatory and enforcement updates with members of the Hong Kong Securities & Futures Employees Union at a webinar held on 16 March 2021. The webinar was well-received by over 250 members.

From the left: Associate Mr. Jensen Chang, Partner and Head of Litigation and Dispute Resolution practice, Ms. Heidi Chui, and Senior Associate Mr. Kyle Lo

During the 2.5-hour webinar, Ms. Chui and her team summarised and introduced the latest regulatory and enforcement updates of Securities and Future Commission (SFC). They explained the recent ramp and dump manipulation schemes and SFC’s crackdown measures, such as issuing restriction notices to relevant brokers to restrict disposal of specific assets. At the webinar, participants get to learn more about SFC’s code of conduct and its regulatory approach through the case studies shared by Ms. Chui and her team.

For more information, please contact our partner Ms. Heidi Chui (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com).

On 8 March 2021, our Partner and Head of Litigation and Disputes Resolution department, Ms. Heidi Chui, was invited to be the presiding arbitrator in the 11th Moot Shanghai International Commercial Arbitration Moot (Moot Shanghai). During the 5-day competition, Moot Shanghai successfully attracted over 230 students from 66 reputable institutions across 22 countries.

Moot Shanghai is organised by East China University of Political Science and Law and Shanghai University of Political Science and Law and co-organized by Shanghai International Arbitration Centre, International Chamber of Commerce (ICC). The competition was fully supported by UNCITRAL Regional Centre of Asia and the Pacific, ICC Hong Kong, Shanghai Bar Association, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, China Academy of Arbitration Law, Singapore International Arbitration Centre, Korean Commercial Arbitration Board, and China Legal Education.

Ms. Chui was the presiding arbitrator of the competition between the Universidad Panamericana Campus Guadalajara and LMU Loyola Law school- Los Angeles. Contestants demonstrated excellent and profound legal knowledge, advocacy skill, and teamwork. After the competition, Ms. Chui shared some tips on how to impress an arbitral tribunal and her experience as an arbitration advocate with the students.

About Moot Shanghai

Moot Shanghai is one of the official pre-moots of the Willem C. Vis International Commercial Arbitration Moot. It is also the only moot in Mainland China that is consisted of different international teams.

The moot simulates all segments of an international arbitration. The tribunal comprises attorneys, arbitrators, or business professionals and evaluates the teams’ legal knowledge, advocacy skill, improvisation, and teamwork.

For more information, please contact our partner Ms. Heidi Chui (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com).

On 8 March 2021, our Partner, Head of Banking and Finance department and Dispute Resolution department, Ms. Heidi Chui, visited the eBRAM International Online Dispute Resolution Centre (eBRAM) at the Justice Place. Ms. Chui is a member of the Innotech Committee of the Law Society of Hong Kong (the Committee).

Led by the Vice President of the Law Society, Mr. Amirali Nasir, the Committee visited the eBRAM Centre, a LawTech deal-making & dispute resolution platform developed to facilitate cross-border trade. During the visit, the Committee explored the latest technology, including a simultaneous document signing app, which assists and provides convenience for future commercial transaction and dispute resolution.

For more information, please contact our partner Ms. Heidi Chui (heidichui.office@sw-hk.com).

(中文) 以下情况, 相信大家或有听闻：一名中国内地人士需要在香港以外币进行交易。该人士在香港拥有银行户口，惟账上并没有足够外币，唯有以人民币从第三方“购买”外币，在中国内地将与所需外币等值的人民币支付至该第三方指定的内地银行户口，该第三方安排于香港将外币转到该名内地人士的香港户口。

上述操作为典型的地下钱庄运作模式，旨在规避内地的外汇管制，而收取外币的一方往往不会知悉转到香港户口的资金来源。倘若该笔款项属诈骗骗款，委托进行兑换、收取外币的一方除了有机会需要承担刑事/行政责任外，也有可能被诈骗受害人作出民事追讨要求返还该笔款项。在此情况下，对诈骗毫不知情的收款方是否需要返还款项？根据香港高等法院原讼法庭于DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Pan Jing [2020] HKCFI 268的判决，收款方或需向受害人作出返还。

事实背景

被告人潘先生（“潘先生”）为内地商人，需要在香港支付美金进行交易，遂委托其友人购买及兑换美元，将人民币转至该友人的内地银行户口。同日，一家香港公司H2H Trading Co Ltd（“H2H”）将与该笔人民币等值的美金从其香港户口（“H2H户口”）转至潘先生名下的香港户口（“潘先生户口”）。

潘先生不知道的是，一名假冒星展银行（香港）有限公司（“星展银行”）客户的人士（其通过星展银行的身份核实）指示星展银行将该客户银行户口中的美金汇至H2H户口，H2H户口收到该笔汇款后，其中部分美金转到潘先生户口（即潘先生从H2H收到的美金）。

星展银行向香港法院申请了禁制令，潘先生户口内的该笔美金被冻结。

星展银行对潘先生提出民事诉讼及简易判决（summary judgment）申请

星展银行向潘先生提起民事诉讼，（除其他事项）要求潘先生向星展银行返还该笔美金，理由为潘先生须复还其不当得利（restitution of unjust enrichment）。潘先生的抗辩理据为：(1) 其为“付出价值的真诚买家”（bona fide purchaser for value）；及 (2) 其“处境已被改变”（change of position）（即被告人因收取款项而真诚改变其处境，如被要求作出复还是不公平的）。

星展银行指出，潘先生通过地下钱庄取得该笔美金，违反内地法律，故不得依赖该等抗辩理据，并以潘先生对申索并无应通过审讯处理（triable）的抗辩理据为由，向法院申请简易判决。潘先生提出以下几点反对简易判决申请：(1) “真诚买家”抗辩理据；(2) “处境改变”抗辩理据；及 (3) 内地法律下应予以审讯的争议点。

香港法院的决定

香港法院批准星展银行的简易判决申请，潘先生须向星展银行复还该笔150,000美元。

1. 经地下钱庄兑换外币违反内地法律

法庭接纳星展银行的专家意见，认为通过地下钱庄兑换外币的行为已经违反了内地行政法，潘先生可遭行政处罚。尽管相关部门并未作出任何行政处罚或采取任何行动，惟此不代表潘先生未有违反内地法律。

2. 被告人并非付出价值的真诚买家

潘先生指出，其付出了人民币购入美金，而他在兑换外币方面没有经验，完全依赖及相信其友人的安排，并无理由相信该友人会用违法的手段兑换美元。加上潘先生对星展银行所指的诈骗毫不知情，由始至终均是真诚行事，因此应获准提出“真诚买家”抗辩理据。

法庭不接纳潘先生的理据，指出如财产是根据违反内地法律的交易转让的，收取该财产的被告人不能被视作已为该财产付出任何价值。于本案中，潘先生经地下钱庄支付人民币及取得美金，该兑换违反内地法律，故该笔人民币在法律上不构成有效的价值，导致潘先生不能依赖“真诚买家”抗辩理据。法庭进一步指出，尽管潘先生声称自己不熟悉外币兑换，但他毕竟是个经验丰富的商人，因此认为潘先生不知道其友人经地下钱庄进行外汇兑换的说法并不可信。

3. 被告人不能依赖“处境改变”抗辩理据

潘先生指出，为了取得该笔美金，他向友人支付人民币，其“处境已经改变”，故应获准主张“处境改变”的抗辩理据。星展银行援引英国上议院Lipkin Gorman v. Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548，指出“有过失的一方”（wrongdoer）不得依赖该抗辩理据。

法庭援引了Barros Mattos Junior v. General Securities & Finance Ltd [2005] 1 WLR 247，指出倘若收款方“改变其处境”的行为违反内地法律，除非有关非法行为极其轻微而可予忽略（so minor as to be ignored on the de minimis principle），否则法庭不会将该行为考虑为“处境改变”的一部分。

由于潘先生支付人民币以兑换外币的行为违反内地法律，加上没有证据证明他不知道其友人会经地下钱庄进行兑换，尽管其对星展银行所指的诈骗并不知情，法庭拒绝接纳潘先生提出的“处境改变”抗辩理据。除此之外，法庭认为违反外汇管制规定有违公共政策（public policy），因此拒绝潘先生提出的抗辩理据是合理的。

需要注意的是，法庭在判决中并无提到于内地以地下钱庄进行兑换是否违反香港法律，但指出如兑换交易违反内地法律，香港法院对该交易不予支持。

总结

于中国内地经地下钱庄进行外汇兑换伴随着巨大法律风险，不仅可能违反相关法律而招致刑责及/或行政处罚，委托进行兑换、收取外币的一方亦无从得知有关资金的来源，更遑论知道资金是否涉及诈骗。从本案可以看到，经地下钱庄取得款项的收款方即使对骗案毫不知情，涉案外汇兑换行为仅违反了内地行政（而非刑事）法律法规，且尚未受到任何处罚，惟在处理骗案受害人提出的民事追讨行动时，香港法院倾向以地下钱庄违反内地法律为由，拒绝收款方依赖“真诚买方”及/或“处境改变”的抗辩理据。

(中文) 2021年3月4日，本所合伙人，银行及金融部和诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师受邀为银行客户的管理团队提供企业线上培训。本次培训的主题为「香港反歧视法例—招聘面试及甄选程序」。

徐律师在课程中讲解了香港的反歧视法例并介绍了相关法例的最新发展。她亦就招聘面试及甄选程序的最佳行事方式作出详尽解说，以及透过案例分析阐释了划一甄选准则的例外情况。

透过本次培训，客户对香港的反歧视法例有了进一步的认识，加强配合银行各项营运及合规的需求，并对日后的面试和甄选程序能有更完善的准备。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 (heidi.chui@sw-hk.com)。