本所合伙人、诉讼及争议解决部主管徐凯怡律师，再度获香港特别行政区财经事务及库务局局长委任为香港会计师公会 (HKICPA) 纪律小组的成员之一，任期由2022年2月1日起为期两年。

HKICPA是香港唯一法定专业会计师注册组织，拥有超过四万名会员，专责培训、发展及监管本港的会计专业，以及处理会计师注册及颁发执业证书事宜。纪律小组之成员由财经事务及库务局局长依据行政长官授权委任的专业人士组成。

徐律师是仲裁员，为少数获取认可进入香港律师会仲裁员名册的仲裁员。另外，徐律师是香港国际仲裁中心、中国国际经济贸易仲裁委员会、上海国际仲裁中心、深圳国际仲裁院、海南国际仲裁院（海南仲裁委员会）、上海仲裁委员会、南京仲裁委员会、广州仲裁委员会、宁波仲裁委员会、合肥仲裁委员会及廊坊仲裁委员会的仲裁员。她亦是香港国际仲裁中心，香港律师会及土地审裁处（建筑物管理案件）的认可调解员，英国特许仲裁司学会院士，同时也是婚姻监礼人。徐律师亦是中国司法部委任的中国委托公证人。

此外，徐律师获委任为中国仲裁法学研究会房地产仲裁研究专业委员会特邀研究员。徐律师亦获香港终审法院首席大法官马道立委任为律师纪律审裁团之执业律师委员。

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或按此查看香港会计师公会纪律小组名单。

(English) With the recent escalation of cybercrime and internet scams, we have handled a wide range of asset tracing and recovery actions domestically and internationally.   As time is of the essence, there always is the risk that the misappropriated assets would be dissipated quickly.  To advise our clients taking out costs-effective applications for Mareva and/or proprietary injunction and/or banker’s trust orders against the fraudsters in a timely manner with further assets tracing, if necessary, we have assisted our clients recovering the stolen monies by and large in the current legal system.

Traditionally, upon receipt of any victim’s Suspicious Transaction Report (“STR”) or police report, the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (“JFIU”) of the HK Police Force (“HKPF”) may issue a Letter of No Consent (“LNC”) to the relevant financial institution(s), pursuant to which the recipient should stop further disposal of the misappropriated assets.  A financial institution disregarded the LNC and allowed the assets to be transferred out of the account would be liable for an offence under Section 25 of the Organised Serious Crime Ordinance, Cap. 455 (“OSCO”).

However, in a recent Hong Kong case Tam Sze Leung & Ors v Commissioner of Police [2021] HKCFI 3118, the Court of First Instance on 30 December 2021 held that the LNC regime is unlawful.

Brief Facts

Four Applicants, who had a total of 12 bank accounts maintained in several banks in Hong Kong, were found unable to withdraw funds from their accounts since around December 2020.  Upon making enquiries with the banks and the Commissioner of HKPF (“the Commissioner”), the Applicants were informed that they were under investigation by the Financial Investigations Division of Narcotics Bureau in relation to an indicatable offence of dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds under Section 25 of the OSCO.

It transpired that the Applicants were suspected of having involved in a money-laundering scheme and were under investigation by the Securities and Futures Commission (“SFC”) since 2019.  In November 2020, the JFIU notified the relevant banks about their investigations, procured them to file STRs and informed them that LNCs would be issued soon.  As per the JFIU’s request, each of these banks filed their STRs and received LNCs from the JFIU.  All the relevant bank accounts were then frozen.  The LNCs were maintained for the next 10 months until the restraint orders against the Applicants and the said accounts were awarded by the Court.

Court’s Decision

The Applicants raised six grounds to challenge the LNC regime and three of them were successful, namely (i) ultra vires, (ii) not prescribed by law and (iii) lack of proportionality.

(i) Ultra vires

The Court accepted that the LNC regime might contribute to the overall objectives of the OSCO when the Forces Procedure Manual (“FPM”) and the Police’s internal guidelines set out the procedures to comply with for the issuance of LNCs.  However, looking at the language of Section 25A(2)(a) of the OSCO, the Court agreed with the submissions made by the Applicant’s Counsel that it was implausible that the legislature could have intended to enact the secret, informal and unregulated asset freezing power which the Commissioner asserted to be enjoyed under the LNC regime.

As the Court decided that using the express provision relating to LNC under Section 25A(2)(a) of the OSCO for securing an informal and unregulated freezing of assets was to use that power for a purpose other than that for which it was supplied, the Court held that the LNC regime was ultra vires OSCO.

(ii) Not prescribed by law

The Court held that the LNC regime was not ‘prescribed by law’.  The requirements for the concept ‘prescribed by law’ include the law should be adequately accessible and formulated with sufficient precision to enable citizens to regulate their conduct.  In the present case, there was insufficient clarity as to the scope of the power under the LNC regime and the manner of its exercise, together with inadequate effective safeguards against abuse under the OSCO and the FPM, the Court concluded that the LNC regime was not prescribed by law.

(iii) Lack of proportionality

The Court accepted that there was a legitimate purpose for the LNC regime to deter criminal activity by restricting access to the proceeds of crime.  Nonetheless, the LNC regime operated without temporal limitation but only having been observed with intermittent internal review and lacking of proportional assessment on the reasonable length of its operation, the Court did not consider that a reasonable balance had been struck between the necessity to combat money laundering and one’s right to the use of property under Article 105 of the Basic Law. Therefore,  the Court held that the LNC regime failed in the proportionality assessment.

Analysis and Takeaways

In Tam Sze Leung, the Court accepted that although the Commissioner was free to express or report suspicious transactions after its ongoing investigations to financial institutions so as to take all steps which appeared necessary for keeping peace, preventing crime and protecting property from criminal actions, the Court was reluctant to uphold the LNC regime which would violate to our current laws. Be that as it may, we trust that the relevant financial institutions will continue at the moment to follow the LNC regime unless there is any new development in the Hong Kong legislation catching up with the ratio herein.

Moreover, Tam Sze Leung does not affect the obligations of the bankers under Sections 25 and 25A of OSCO. The bankers are still obliged to closely monitor any suspicious accounts and to file STRs where appropriate.  It is prudent for the bankers to ensure effective anti-money laundering policies and mechanisms, which have to be in place and to keep a good record of all the documentation and evidence in support of their decision to restrict or freeze any suspected accounts.  We recommend the bankers to regularly review their decisions on freezing the suspected accounts and to check with the law-enforcing authorities in response to any changes or updates in circumstances.

The full impact of Tam Sze Leung remains to be seen, pending the relief to be granted by the Court to the Applicants and the potential appeal of the decision by the parties.  In addition, the constitutional problems identified in this case are yet to be resolved or addressed through legislative amendment or enactment.  With the uncertain development of the LNC regime, for now, it is advisable for the victims of commercial crimes to apply for relevant injunctions and/or appropriate court orders to stop any dissipation of funds as early as possible.

This article is authored by Ms. Milly Hung, Partner, Mr. Michael Lau, Senior Associate and Mr. Warwick Tam , Associate of Litigation Department of Stevenson, Wong & Co.  If you have any problem in relation to this matter, please contact Ms. Milly Hung on (852) 2533 2561 or email to millyhung.office@sw-hk.com.

This article is for information purposes only.  Its content does not constitute legal advice and should not be treated as such.  Stevenson, Wong & Co. will not be liable to you in respect of any special, indirect or consequential loss or damage in relation thereto.

权威法律媒体《商法》（China Business Law Journal）近日公布了2021年度 The A-List 法律精英名册，本所合伙人劳恒晃律师和徐凯怡律师凭借卓越的专业实力和客户及业界之认可，荣登 “中国业务-优秀国际律师100强” 榜单。

《商法》向中国和全球的企业法务及众多中外顶尖律师事务所的合伙人发出了调查邀请，听取业界的评价和客户之回馈，并结合多年来对中国法律服务市场的观察与分析，最终从数以千计的反馈中甄选出200位中国业务优秀律师，其中100位来自中国所，100位来自外资所。

劳恒晃律师擅长于资本市场、企业融资和收购合并等业务领域。劳律师有丰富的执业经验，曾多次参与首次公开招股项目，为香港交易所主板和创业板的发行人、保荐人、承销商等提供顾问服务。同时，他也协助不少上市公司处理不同类型的企业融资交易，并担任私募基金、创业投资基金及香港上市公司的顾问，协助他们投资或退出相关的企业 (尤其以中国大陆所在地的企业为主)。此外，劳律师也协助中国境内企业进行房地产交易、海外投资及其他海外股票交易所的首次公开招股。

劳律师多次荣获国际权威法律评级机构的荣誉奖项，除了连续三年获荣登《商法》的 “The A-List法律精英100强” 榜单外，同时亦获《亚洲法律杂志》(ALB)评选为 “2021年度亚洲交易律师- 香港“，《国际金融法律评论》 (IFLR1000) 亚太地区 2021-22 年度榜单评选为 “资本市场：股权领域 – 高度评价之领先律师“。

徐律师为本所银行与金融部和诉讼及争议解决部门的主管律师，曾兼任数间中资银行的内部法律顾问。

徐律师专长于商业诉讼、仲裁及争议解决。徐律师精于为客户提供资产追踪，按揭诉讼，公司接管，强制执行判决，公司清盘及破产等各方面的法律意见。

此外，徐律师为中国内地审判的个案提供法律顾问服务，出具香港法律的专家意见，对跨境诉讼，国际仲裁富有经验。徐律师亦擅长处理无力偿还和商业欺诈相关等事务，协助清盘人，接管人，破产管理人，债权人及其他负责清盘破产事务的专业人士处理债务重整，跨境资产追踪等各类法律问题。

徐律师于2016 年荣获Lexology 颁授Client Choice 香港区最佳诉讼律师奖，并获Asian Legal Business提名为 “年度最佳争议解决律师” (2017, 2019 & 2020年) 及 “年度最佳女律师” (2017, 2020 & 2021年)。徐律师亦获Asialaw Profiles颁授 “银行金融” (2018 & 2019年) 及 “诉讼及争议解决” (2018 – 2022年) 领域之 “顶尖律师“。

如阁下有任何查询或想了解更多详情，请联络本所劳恒晃律师和徐凯怡律师，或按此查看《2021年 The A-List法律精英100强》榜单。

2022年1月20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担任香港大学法律学院的校友讲座之分享嘉宾，分享她从香港大学毕业后的职业历程。本次网络研讨会 “近距离对话” (Up Close and Personal) 由香港大学法律学院和香港大学校友会联合举办。

徐律师除了向法学院学生分享在港大法学院求学时的经验和心得外，亦分享了她成为诉讼律师和仲裁员的经验和见解，以及如何克服在过程中遇到的困难和阻碍。此外，徐律师亦提醒学生们开放思维的重要性，并特意鼓励准备投身法律领域的女大学生。

本次分享广获好评。学生们在整个过程中积极参与，并踊跃向演讲嘉宾发问有关追求法律专业的见解和建议。

若阁下想了解更多详情，请联络本所徐凯怡律师 。

分享会主持人，香港大学法律学院专业法律教育系高级讲师叶彗茵女士

2022年1月20日，本所合伙人曾浩贤律师获邀在2022年元宇宙线上投资峰会上分享香港特殊目的收购公司(SPAC) 的法规和风险。他亦获邀为 “最大化投资者和初创企业投资回报的策略” 的专家讨论会担任演讲嘉宾之一。本次峰会 “投资创新建设理想国度——由SPAC到元宇宙” 由博财经主办，并邀请了来自世界各地的杰出专家和行业领先企业如AAX、火币网等，就香港元宇宙和SPAC的新兴投资趋势和机会进行分享与讨论。

曾律师在分享会上阐述了香港的新上市制度SPAC，并解释了SPAC并购交易前后的上市要求。他亦分享了他对此新上市制度风险的见解。在其后的专家讨论会中，曾律师与其他嘉宾向投资者和初创企业分享他们在纳斯达克和港交所的上市经验。曾律师另外在会上亦就香港和美国的SPAC制度进行了分享和比较。

如阁下想了解更多详情,请联络本所曾浩贤律师。

本所合伙人曾浩贤律师 (左上) 、A SPAC 首席执行官曾思维先生 (右上) 、主持人博财经 Mr. Roy Ng (左下) 和 Prenetics 首席财务官卢恺浚先生 (右下 )。

史蒂文生黄律师事务所很荣幸地宣布，本所的SW私人客户部务连续两年荣登国际知名法律媒体《亚太法律 500 强》(The Legal 500 Asia Pacific Guide, “The Legal 500”) 之私人客户（税务、信托、财富管理和争议性遗嘱认证）榜单。 在过去一年，The Legal 500 研究团队对全球超过 300,000 名企业法律顾问进行了调查和采访。获推荐的律所均受到法律顾问和客户的高度认可和推荐。

The Legal 500赞扬本所的SW私人客户部: “涵盖广泛的跨领域事务，工作范围从家庭财富和遗产传承规划，到协助准备持久授权书和管理精神上无行为能力的人的资产。家庭法部门主管傅景元律师 拥有广泛的诉讼或非诉讼专业知识，包括辅助救济和涉及儿童监护和赡养安排等争议个案。 林颖诗律师 和陈丽卿律师 也值得推荐。”

如有任何查询，请联络本所合伙人及SW私人客户部主管傅景元律师 和林颖诗律师 ，或查看The Legal 500榜单 (只提供英文版本)。