This fortnight’s Hong Kong authorities are practical, not theoretical: who must register as a society, how SFC freezing orders are being held, when revised trafficking guidelines still cut a sentence, and why unauthorised building works are being demolished rather than regularised.

From the courts

HKSAR v Joseph Zen and others — The Court of Appeal held that a fundraising vehicle with shared objects, a governing structure and office-bearers is a registrable society. The Societies Ordinance scheme survived Basic Law and Bill of Rights challenges, and an honest-belief defence is not available. Treat “we are only a trust” as a high-risk description until the structure is checked against the ordinance.

SFC v Lo Kai Bong and others — Worldwide Mareva injunctions were continued against an SFC respondent and a related company treated as a Chabra defendant. The SFC was not required to give a cross-undertaking in damages, and a promise to ring-fence net proceeds of Japanese land was not enough to vary the order.

HKSAR v Barros Correia Daniel Carlos — A trafficking sentence of 14 years was reduced to 12 years and 4 months under the revised guidelines. Appeals still live after the Lam Man Tak cut-off can attract the new brackets; quantity sets the band, but role and culpability set the starting point.

Bolitho v Appeal Tribunal (Buildings) — A demolition order for unauthorised works was upheld. Once works are carried out, the Building Authority cannot give retrospective approval, and alteration is not a required alternative to demolition. Basic Law property-rights arguments did not displace a public-safety demolition.

From the profession

SCMP reports the 612 Fund trustees’ unsuccessful appeal, matching the Court of Appeal’s society analysis. The Department of Justice’s note on the Hong Kong Alliance sentences records terms of up to 7 years and 3 months and a HK$1.5 million fine, with the court stressing that the national security law is not retrospective. JSM’s alert on Labour Tribunal settlements is a reminder that a narrow “full and final” consent order will not bar later claims outside its scope. Hong Kong Lawyer’s drone-economy guide flags criminal and insurance duties under Cap. 448G and the unresolved cross-boundary gap.

Open the judgments on Common Laws to read the holdings in full.

Image: Magnet larry / Wikimedia Commons