(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)。

引言

于2022年1月12日，香港金融管理局（「金管局」）发布了一份关于加密资产和稳定币的讨论文件（「讨论文件」），邀请业界和公众就有关的监管模式提出意见。鉴于全球越来越多地方采用加密资产及将科技广泛融入金融体系，金管局藉此探讨并参考了本地和其他主要国家的监管模式以及国际监管组织的建议。此讨论文件主要阐述了对于(i)认可机构及(ii)用作支付用途的稳定币的监管框架之构思。

加密资产和稳定币

下表列出在讨论文件中有关加密资产和稳定币的定义和性质：

香港的现行监管制度

(1) 「虚拟资产服务提供者」牌照监管制度

于2019年11月，香港证券及期货事务监察委员会（「证监会」）发表立场书，就提供证券型虚拟资产或代币交易服务的平台制定发牌制度（「自愿发牌制度」）。自愿发牌制度适用于提供起码一种证券型虚拟资产交易服务的平台。只提供非证券型虚拟资产交易服务的平台则不受该制度监管。

于2021年5月，财经事务及库务局（「财库局」）已经完成了就监管虚拟资产服务提供者的发牌制度的公众咨询。在初始阶段，该牌照制度将不适用于其他类型的虚拟资产服务提供者，例如加密货币钱包供应商或托管人。有关详情，请参考本所于2021年7月9日发布的新闻快讯《财经事务及库务局就加强香港对虚拟资产服务提供者的打击洗钱及恐怖分子资金筹集规管的立法建议的咨询总结》。

(2) 支付系统及储值支付工具条例

根据《支付系统及储值支付工具条例》，金管局负责监管和发牌给予香港的储值支付工具，例如电子钱包及预付卡。加密资产的运作模式，特别是用于支付的模式，在某些方面与储值支付工具相似。然而，在判断加密资产是否等同储值支付工具，则需要根据具体情况来决定。如果加密资产符合储值支付工具的定义，则该加密资产须受金管局的发牌制度规管。然而，《支付系统及储值支付工具条例》中储值支付工具的定义可能不包括出现在市场上某些类型的稳定币及/或其活动。因此，金管局正在考虑扩大《支付系统及储值支付工具条例》的范围，以涵盖用作支付用途的稳定币。

(3) 无资产支持的加密资产，如证券加密资产

于2018年11月，证监会向所有中介人发布了一份关于分销虚拟资产基金时的监管规定和应达到的标准与作业手法。至于未获证监会授权的虚拟资产基金，中介人应只针对符合「专业投资者」的定义（载于《证券及期货条例》）的客户。有意提供与虚拟资产有关的投资服务的认可机构必须事前通知金管局和证监会。

用作支付用途的稳定币

一些稳定币将可能成为普遍接受的支付方式。然而，现有的监管框架未能全面涵盖此类稳定币。故此，该监管漏洞或会给市场和社区带来风险。其中一个关键风险是洗钱/恐怖分子资金筹集风险，因为稳定币可经互联网或其他方式以匿名方式轻易地持有和转手。

主要讨论问题

下表摘录了金管局邀请业界和公众提出意见的8个问题及其相应的意见：

分析与启示

加密资产的使用迅速增长可能给金融系统带来风险。制定监管制度以适当地管理加密资产可以解决对用户和金融系统构成的各种风险，并能同时拥抱创新的潜在好处。金管局的这份讨论文件是对更新其监管手段非常合时的一步，显示了香港监管机构在科技进步中确保货币和金融稳定的主动性和决心。我们欢迎就这一主题进行更多的讨论。

如有任何疑问或获取更多信息，请联系我们的合伙人张源辉律师。

本新闻简讯仅供参考之用。本新闻简讯之内容不构成亦不应被视为法律意见。对于任何因根据或倚赖本文件所载资料所作决定，行动或不行动而引致的损失或损害，史蒂文生黄律师事务所概不负责。