Case Update: – Withdrawal of Criminal Charge and Award of Costs

On 8 August 2025, Mr. Conrad Wan and Mr. Zavier To successfully secured the withdrawal of a criminal charge against a defendant from the People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) and obtained an order for legal costs in her favour.

The defendant had been charged with one count of Passing Counterfeit Notes and Coins, contrary to section 99(1)(a) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200), arising from allegations that she had deposited counterfeit United States dollar banknotes at a bank in Hong Kong.

She first appeared before the court in April 2025, where her application for bail was refused on the grounds of her PRC residency status and possession of a two-way entry permit. A subsequent bail review application was also rejected for the same reason. Thereafter, the defendant engaged new solicitors and counsel, namely Mr. Conrad Wan and Mr. Zavier To, who successfully obtained bail on her behalf.

Following the grant of bail, and after a thorough review of the evidence with his client, Conrad and Zavier wrote to the Department of Justice inviting the withdrawal of the charge on the basis of insufficiency of evidence. The prosecution ultimately accepted the submission and agreed to withdraw the charge.

During the withdrawal hearing, Zavier applied for an order that the defendant’s legal costs be paid by the prosecution. Despite strong opposition from the prosecution, he relied on the trite principle established in Tong Cunlin v HKSAR (1999) 2 HKCFAR 531, submitting that there was no reason to depart from the presumption in favour of awarding costs to the defendant under section 3 of the Costs in Criminal Cases Ordinance (Cap. 492). The court accepted his arguments and granted the costs order.

Following the conclusion of the case, due to the defendant’s status as a two-way entry permit holder, Zavier took proactive steps to ensure her smooth departure from Hong Kong and re-entry into Mainland China. He liaised with the Immigration Department and the Police, and personally accompanied the defendant to the Immigration Headquarters to secure the necessary exit permission. After being compelled to remain in Hong Kong for four months, the defendant was finally able to return home, bringing the matter to a just conclusion.