DCCJ 1304/2023

[2025] HKDC 1586

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CIVIL ACTION NO 1304 OF 2023

--------------------

BETWEEN

--------------------

--------------------

DECISION

--------------------

A. INTRODUCTION

1. This is an email fraud case.

2. The plaintiff filed a summons dated 23 July 2025 pursuant to O 13 r 6 and O 19 r 7 of the Rules of the District Court ( Cap 336H ) for a default judgment due to the defendant’s failure to file a Notice of Intention to Defend and serve the Defence.

3. The summons seeks, inter alia , a declaration that the defendant is liable to the plaintiff for the sum of USD 88,466 (or its Hong Kong Dollar equivalent) as a constructive trustee, and that the plaintiff is the beneficial owner of that sum (§1). It also seeks judgment for and payment of this amount (§2); leave to join The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited (“ HSBC ”) as a respondent for the purpose of giving effect to the vesting order described below (§6); a vesting order pursuant to sections 52(1)(e) and 52(5) of the Trustee Ordinance ( Cap 29 ) (the “ TO ”) (§7); and an order directing HSBC to pay the sum in the defendant's bank account (account no. 174XXXXX888) maintained with HSBC (the “ Account ”) to satisfy the judgment sum awarded to the plaintiff under the vesting order (§8).

4. On 29 March 2023, the plaintiff issued the Writ herein. The Writ was amended on 11 July 2023 and re-amended on 11 June 2025 pursuant to the Order of Deputy District Judge Val Chow dated 26 May 2025.

5. On that occasion, the learned judge ordered that service of the Re-Amended Concurrent Writ of Summons, indorsed with the Statement of Claim, be effected by emailing the documents to the defendant’s email address: “ CYF17819942189123@163.com ”.

6. I am satisfied that the Re-Amended Concurrent Writ of Summons indorsed with the Statement of Claim has been served, and that the defendant has defaulted in filing a Notice of Intention to Defend or the Defence, entitling the plaintiff to apply for default judgment pursuant to O 13 r 6 and O 19 r 7.

7. The defendant was absent during the hearing on 1 September 2025. I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s summons was also served on the defendant at the aforementioned email address; therefore the defendant had notice of the hearing. I proceeded to deal with the plaintiff’s application in the defendant’s absence.

B. THE PLAINTIFF’S PLEADED CASE

8. It is well-established that, in an application for default judgment under O 19, r 7, the court cannot consider any evidence but must render judgment based solely on the pleadings.

9. The plaintiff has, at all material times, been and continues to be an individual residing in California, the United States of America.

10. The defendant has, at all ma