(A) Introduction
In HD Hyundai Infracore China Co Ltd v. Li Zhiwei, HCMP 785/2024 and HCRE 84/2024, date of judgment: 24 November 2025, [1] the Court addressed a novel issue under the Mainland Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) (the “Ordinance”): whether a payment order from a Mainland criminal enforcement ruling was registrable in Hong Kong. The Court allowed the appeal and granted registration.
This landmark decision confirms that the scope of the Ordinance extends to payment orders arising from criminal proceedings. This creates a powerful new mechanism for victims to trace and recover the proceeds of crime located in Hong Kong as well as paves the way for more robust cross-border enforcement.
(B) Facts
In around November 2014, HD Hyundai Infracore China Co., Ltd. (“HD Hyundai”) was defrauded by Mr. Li Zhiwei (“Li”) and his accomplices (collectively “Fraudsters”). [2]
The Fraudsters were convicted in December 2017 by (2021) 内03刑初3号刑事判决书 (“2021 IPC Criminal Judgment”). [3] Subsequently, the Higher People’s Court of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region dismissed Li’s appeal in (2022) 内刑终132号《刑事裁定书》(“2022 Final Criminal Judgment”), which sentenced Li to prison and ordered the Fraudsters to jointly repay RMB 190 million to HD Hyundai. [4]
Initial enforcement proceedings in the Mainland recovered only around RMB 27.9 million. As no further assets could be located, the court terminated these proceedings in July 2023. [5]
Following the commencement of the Ordinance in January 2024, HD Hyundai applied to the Mainland court to resume enforcement. On 23 October 2024, the Mainland court issued a new enforcement ruling ("2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling”), which ordered Li to compensate HD Hyundai RMB162,061,811.37 (the “Relevant Part”). [6]
After that, HD Hyundai commenced HCRE 84/2024 against Li, seeking to register the Relevant Part in Hong Kong under the Ordinance. [7] On 12 March 2025, Master Hui dismissed the said application (“12/3/25 Order”) on the ground that the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling was merely a procedural step in enforcing the original 2022 criminal judgment, not a standalone and registrable judgment. HD Hyundai appealed the 12/3/25 Order. [8]
Separately, in HCMP 785/2024, HD Hyundai sought and was granted an interlocutory Mareva injunction against Li’s assets. The interlocutory injunction was first granted on 17 May 2024 and continued thereafter. The Court also addressed whether this interlocutory injunction should be continued. [9]
(C) Issues
The Court identified two issues for determination: [10]
(1) Whether the Relevant Part was an operative part of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling since, on its face, the order that was made was simply the imposition of freezing and asset-preservation measures; and
(2) Whether the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling is a standalone ruling independent of the 2021 IPC Criminal Judgment and 2022 Final Criminal Judgment (collectively “Underlying Criminal Judgments”).
(D) Decision
The Court allowed the appeal and granted the registration order on the following grounds:
(1) Admission of New Evidence: The Court accepted new evidence, including an explanatory note from the Mainland court dated 4 August 2025 and an expert report prepared by Mr. Jiang Zhe, a partner at Zhong Lun Law Firm in Beijing, which clarified that the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling was an independent, standalone and legally effective judgment under the Arrangement of the Supreme People’s Court on Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters by the Courts of the Mainland and of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and that the Relevant Part is a court order directly enforceable on Li. [11]
(2) Nature of the Ruling: The Court found that the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling was not only a “preservation ruling”. It included an order for the transfer (划拨) of assets belonging to Li, which shows that it was a substantive enforcement measure, not an interim preservation step. [12]
(3) Independence from Underlying Criminal Judgments: The Court found that the Relevant Part was an independent and standalone ruling. Under the Mainland law, the enforcement procedure is independent of the trial procedure and an enforcement ruling takes effect upon its issuance or service and is not automatically invalidated by subsequent challenges to the underlying judgment. [13]
(4) The Relevant Part as an Operative Order: The Court found the Relevant Part was an operative part of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Ruling. Applying standard interpretative methods, the Court found that the language was self-evidently an order for payment (textual interpretation), was made for the purpose of enforcing a judgment debt (purposive interpretation), and must be read as part of the holistic document without drawing a formalistic distinction based on its position relative to the words "裁定如下" (systematic interpretation). [14]
Procedural and Ancillary Orders
Upon granting the registration order, the Court also addressed two procedure issues.
(1) Exchange Rate: The Court directed the Applicant to provide evidence of the prevailing exchange rate as of the date of the decision pursuant to PD 38 §9 [15] and Section 19(2) of the Ordinance [16]. [17]
(2) Costs: The Court held that the reasonable costs of, or incidental to, the registration should also be registered as part of the registration order under Section 18(2) (d) of the Ordinance. [18] [19]
Finally, given that the Court acceded to the registration of the Relevant Part, the Court ordered the continuation of the Mareva injunction granted in aid of the 2024 Criminal Enforcement Proceedings. [20]
(E) Key Takeaways
This decision is significant on the following grounds:
(1) Precedent on Payment Orders from Mainland criminal proceedings: As one of the first cases on the registration of a PRC ruling under the Ordinance, especially one where the relevant ruling is a payment order given in Mainland criminal proceedings to which the intended recipient is not a party, [21] it establishes a crucial precedent that an order for payment from Mainland criminal proceedings is registrable judgment in Hong Kong.
(2) Significant Expansion of the Scope of the Ordinance: The Court confirmed that the definition of a registrable “judgment” under the Ordinance extends to payment orders embedded in criminal rulings, even where the judgment creditor was the victim, not a formal party to the case. This provides a powerful new tool for recovering the proceeds of crime located in Hong Kong.
[1] https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=174754
[2] HD Hyundai Infracore China Co Ltd v. Li Zhiwei, HCMP 785/2024 and HCRE 84/2024, date of judgment: 24 November 2025, §2.1
[3] Ibid, §2.3
[4] Ibid, §2.4
[5] Ibid, §2.6
[6] Ibid, §2.7
[7] Ibid, §1.1
[8] Ibid, §1.3, §4.9
[9] Ibid, §1.5
[10] Ibid, §6.1
[11] Ibid, §6.2-§6.5
[12] Ibid, §6.6
[13] Ibid, §6.7
[14] Ibid, §6.8
[15] If the sum payable under the Mainland Judgment is in a currency other than the Hong Kong dollar, the applicant is required to provide the exchange rate prevailing on the date of registration (see section 19(2) of the Ordinance). Accordingly, if the application for registration is granted, the applicant shall provide evidence of the prevailing exchange rate at the time the draft order is re-submitted for the Court’s approval to effect the registration.
[16] The Judgment or part, when registered in accordance with a registration order, must be registered as if the Judgment or part required the payment of a sum of money denominated in Hong Kong dollars that, on the basis of the rate of exchange prevailing at the day of registration of the Judgment or part, is equivalent to the sum payable under the Judgment or part.
[17] HD Hyundai Infracore China Co Ltd v. Li Zhiwei, HCMP 785/2024 and HCRE 84/2024, date of judgment: 24 November 2025, §8.3
[18] The Judgment or part must also be registered for the following sums as if they were required to be paid under the Judgment or part—any reasonable costs of, or incidental to, the registration of the Judgment or part, including the costs of obtaining a copy of the Judgment duly sealed by the original Mainland court.
[19] HD Hyundai Infracore China Co Ltd v. Li Zhiwei, HCMP 785/2024 and HCRE 84/2024, date of judgment: 24 November 2025, §8.4
[20] Ibid, §9.1
[21] Ibid, §7.2
No comments:
Post a Comment