|
HCA 1617/2019
[2019] HKCFI 2405
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
ACTION NO 1617 OF 2019
________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
SOCIÉTÉ GÉNÉRALE, SINGAPORE BRANCH |
Plaintiff |
|
AND
|
| |
INTER-PACIFIC GROUP PTE LTD |
1st Defendant |
| |
INTER-PACIFIC PETROLEUM PTE LTD |
2nd Defendant |
| |
CHUANG XIN (CHINA) GROUP LIMITED |
3rd Defendant |
| |
(創新(中國)集團有限公司) |
|
| |
CHEUNG LAI NA (張麗娜) also known as ZOE CHEUNG |
4th Defendant |
| |
LAU KAI YUNG (劉繼勇) also known as STEPHEN LAU |
5th Defendant |
| |
LEGEND SIX HOLDINGS LTD (陸駿股份有限公司) |
6th Defendant |
| |
CHEN CHUN JOHN (陳俊) |
7th Defendant |
| |
PACIFIC DRAGON (HONG KONG) ENERGY LIMITED |
8th Defendant |
| |
DAISHO MICROLINE LIMITED |
9th Defendant |
| |
ORIENTAL EVERISE LIMITED |
10th Defendant |
________________
| Before: |
Hon K Yeung J in Chambers |
| Date of Hearing: |
20 September 2019 |
| Date of Decision: |
20 September 2019 |
________________
D E C I S I O N
________________
1. P is a bank. It is its case that as a result of a conspiracy amongst D1 to D7, P has been defrauded into providing banking facilities to the IP Group (which term P uses to denote D1 to D3). The alleged business transactions involved D2 receiving orders for marine bunkers and fuel oils from its customers, and then placing back‑to‑back purchase orders with D6. D2 then paid D6, with the facilities obtained from P, by making payments into a specific account D6 holds with the Bank of China (“D6’s BoC A/C”). P says that the underlying business transactions said to have been financed by those facilities in fact did not exist. Forged documents and instruments were employed to give the impression that they did. The monies were routed back to the IP Group for its own use. P further says D4, a director of D2 and sole director of D3, has made clear admission to P about the fraud. Loss to the extent of USD89.8 million has been claimed (the “Facility Funds”).
2. On 30 August 2019, P obtained a Mareva injunction/ preservation order against D1 to D7. When continued on 6 September 2019, discovery in aid was also ordered. I collectively call them the “1st Injunction”. On 6 September 2019, P also obtained a banker’s book order pursuant to s 21 of the Evidence Ordinance against the Bank of China (the “BoC Disclosure Order”) in respect of the account of D6’s BoC A/C.
3. Information disclosed by D6 and D7 as compelled by the 1st Injunction reveals that some of the Facility Funds had been transferred from the D6’s BoC A/C to, relevantly, D10 (USD44.85 million odd), D8 (USD24.96 million odd), D9 (USD6.65 million odd) and D3 (USD3.05 million odd). Armed with those disclosures, P obtained from Deputy Judge MK Liu on 13 September 2019 a further Mareva injunction/preservation order against D8 to D10 (the “2nd Injunction”).
4. Before me as the Summons Judge, P has taken out a number of Summonses:
(a) against D8‑D10, the inter partes return date Summons filed on 16 September 2019 for:
(i) variation of the 2nd Injunction, in terms of the addition of discovery in aid against D8 to D10;
(ii) continuation of the 2nd Injunction as amended;
(b) against D4‑D7, summons filed on 17 September 2019 for:
(i) enforcement of the of discovery in aid against D4, D6 and D7;
(ii) leave to release information and documents disclosed or to be disclosed by D4, D5, D6 and D7 to the police;
(iii) leave to release information and documents disclosed or to be disclosed by BoC to the police;
(c) against the BoC, summons filed on 17 September 2019 for enforcement of the BoC Disclosure Order;
(d) Summons dated 19 September 2019 for extension of time of 12 weeks to file its Statement of Claim;
(e) Summons dated 19 September 2019 for amendment of...
| 
