Court Accepts Defence Arguments on Procedural Fairness in OSCO Case — Led by Solicitor Emily Au

《OSCO 充公案中法院接納程序公義抗辯 — 區嘉文律師主導辯方策略》

Case No.: HCCP 900/2025｜案件編號：HCCP 900/2025

1. Case Overview 案件概覽

On 17 June 2026, the Court of First Instance (Kwok J) delivered a reserved judgment in HCCP 900/2025, an application by the Secretary for Justice for a Confiscation Order (CO) under section 8 of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 455) (“OSCO”).

2026 年 6 月 17 日，高等法院（郭法官）就 HCCP 900/2025 頒下保留判決，涉及律政司根據《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》（第 455 章）第 8 條向被告申請 充公令（Confiscation Order）。

The Respondent was represented by Ms. Emily Au (區嘉文律師) as instructing solicitor, who led the defence strategy, drafted the key affirmation, and advanced the procedural and cross‑border arguments accepted by the Court.

被告由 區嘉文律師（Emily Au） 擔任 指示律師，主導整體抗辯策略、草擬關鍵誓章，並提出多項獲法院接納的程序及跨境法律論點。

2. Key Issues 核心爭議

The Court considered:

-The Secretary for Justice’s Originating Summons for a CO

-The Secretary for Justice’s application for adjournment sine die

-The Respondent’s strike‑out application and request to discharge the Restraint Order (RO)

法院需處理：

-律政司的充公令原訟傳票

-無限期押後申請

-被告的剔除申請及撤銷限制令（RO）申請

3. Defence Submissions Led by Ms. Emily Au 法院接納區嘉文律師主導的抗辯論點

 3.1 Court accepts defence argument: DOJ failed to take reasonable steps

The Court agreed with the defence (led by Ms. Au) that DOJ’s pre‑filing steps were insufficient:

“Relying on a single email address… falls well short of the standard of reasonableness.”

(Judgment §17)

法院接納區嘉文律師的論點，認為律政司在提出充公程序前，未有採取足夠的「合理步驟」：

「僅依賴單一電郵地址……遠低於合理程度。」

（判詞 §17）

 3.2 Court accepts defence argument: MLA was available and DOJ failed to use it

The defence, led by Ms. Au, argued that DOJ should have used the existing MLA channel with the Czech Republic.

The Court agreed:

“A viable mechanism for communication was readily available… ignoring it falls short of reasonableness.”

(§16–17)

法院同意區嘉文律師的論點，認為律政司應使用已建立的司法互助（MLA）渠道，而非只依賴電郵。

4. Outcome 裁決結果

 4.1 Strike‑out dismissed, but defence wins major procedural findings

Although the OS was not struck out, the Court expressly accepted the defence’s procedural criticisms:

-DOJ’s steps “fell well short” of reasonableness

-MLA should have been used

-Email‑only contact was inadequate

This is a substantive procedural success for the defence.

雖然法院最終沒有剔除原訟傳票，但法院明確接納我方的程序性批評：

-律政司的步驟「遠低於合理程度」

-應使用司法互助渠道

-單靠電郵並不足夠

 4.2 Confiscation application adjourned sine die

The Court adjourned the CO application indefinitely to allow DOJ to pursue extradition.

法院將充公程序 無限期押後，以便律政司啟動引渡程序。

Importantly:

The Respondent may restore the matter if DOJ delays.

(§28)

重要的是：

若律政司有不合理拖延，被告可申請恢復案件並尋求最終駁回。

（§28）

 4.3 RO challenge remains open — Court invites Respondent to apply

The Court emphasised:

“The RO is the subject of separate proceedings… the Respondent remains at liberty to apply for its discharge.”

(§27)

法院明確指出，被告可於限制令（RO）案件中申請撤銷或變更。

5. Why This Case Matters 案件的重要性

This decision highlights:

✔ DOJ must take proper, reasonable steps before freezing assets

✔ MLA channels must be used where available

✔ Email‑only contact is insufficient

✔ Courts will scrutinise procedural fairness

✔ Respondents may challenge restraint orders separately

✔ Long‑term freezing without progress may be disproportionate

本案展示：

✔律政司必須採取「合理步驟」

✔必須使用司法互助渠道

✔單靠電郵並不足夠

✔法院會審視程序公義

✔被告可挑戰限制令

✔長期凍結資產可能不相稱

6. Our Role — Led by Ms. Emily Au 我方角色（由區嘉文律師主導）

As instructing solicitor, Ms. Emily Au:

✔led the defence strategy

✔drafted the key affirmation

✔developed the procedural and cross‑border arguments

✔challenged DOJ’s pre‑filing steps

✔protected the Respondent’s procedural rights

區嘉文律師作為指示律師：

✔主導整體抗辯策略

✔草擬關鍵誓章

✔提出程序及跨境法律論點

✔指出律政司的程序缺失

✔保障被告的程序權利

 7. Professional Expertise & Practice Focus 區嘉文律師的專業領域與實務優勢

To assist clients facing complex cross‑border criminal and financial proceedings, Ms. Emily Au has developed a focused practice in:

✔ OSCO litigation (s.8 confiscation, s.15 restraint orders)

✔ Cross‑border criminal procedure and MLA strategy

✔ Asset freezing, restraint order discharge, and proportionality challenges

✔ Defence of foreign nationals facing Hong Kong proceedings

✔ Procedural fairness and abuse‑of‑process arguments

✔ High‑stakes affidavit drafting and evidence management

為協助面對跨境刑事及財務程序的客戶，區嘉文律師專注處理：

✔ 《有組織及嚴重罪行條例》訴訟（第 8 條充公、第 15 條限制令）

✔ 跨境刑事程序及司法互助（MLA）策略

✔ 資產凍結、限制令撤銷及不相稱性爭議

✔ 外籍人士在港刑事程序的辯護

✔ 程序公義及濫用程序抗辯

✔ 高風險誓章撰寫及證據管理

Her work in this case demonstrates her ability to:

-identify procedural defects

-challenge government applications effectively

-navigate cross‑jurisdictional evidence

-protect clients from premature or disproportionate asset freezing

本案展示區律師能夠：

-精準識別程序缺失

-有效挑戰政府申請

-處理跨境證據

-阻止過早或不相稱的資產凍結

 8. For Clients Facing Similar OSCO / Restraint Order / Cross‑Border Issues 如您面對類似 OSCO、限制令或跨境刑事問題

If you or your company is facing:

✔ an OSCO investigation

✔ a restraint order (RO) freezing assets

✔ a confiscation application

✔ cross‑border criminal enquiries

✔ MLA‑related complications

✔ procedural fairness concerns

Ms. Emily Au is available to assist.

如您或您的公司正面對：

✔ OSCO 調查

✔ 限制令（RO）凍結資產

✔ 充公程序

✔ 跨境刑事查詢

✔ 司法互助（MLA）問題

✔ 程序公義爭議

區嘉文律師可提供協助。

With experience in high‑stakes OSCO litigation, cross‑jurisdictional strategy, and asset‑protection defence, she provides precise, strategic, and responsive representation for clients requiring urgent and specialised support.  Please contact our Ms. Emily Au directly if required.

區律師具備處理 高風險 OSCO 訴訟、跨境策略 及 資產保護辯護 的經驗，能為需要迅速及專業支援的客戶提供 精準、策略性及高效率 的法律服務。如你有需要，請與我們的區律師直接聯絡。