資產凍結令是否涵蓋信託資產？申請獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LIMITED 及 FANG ANKONG (方安空) - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Coleman J - 判決日期：2026年1月8日 ### 案情摘要 原告 Delco Participation B.V. (Delco) 在兩宗訴訟中成功向被告 Fang Ankong (方安空) (Fang) 取得總計港幣6.7億元的判決。由於Fang尚未支付任何款項，Delco申請了判後資產凍結強制令 (Mareva injunction) 及附屬資產披露令 (ancillary asset disclosure orders)。Delco尋求擴大強制令的範圍，以涵蓋Fang以信託或代名人身份為第三方持有的資產，理由是Fang有隱藏資產的傾向。Fang反對此擴大範圍的申請，認為沒有足夠證據證明他以信託形式持有資產，且標準凍結令已足夠。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於，法院是否應擴大判後資產凍結強制令及附屬資產披露令的範圍，以涵蓋被告以信託或代名人身份為第三方持有的資產。原告Delco主張，被告Fang有隱藏資產的傾向，且其商業道德低下，故應擴大強制令範圍以防止資產散失。被告Fang則認為，原告未能提供足夠證據證明他以信託形式持有資產，且此類擴大範圍的命令應屬例外情況。 ### 判決理由 法官Coleman J 審視了資產凍結強制令的目的和原則，特別是關於被告以信託形式持有資產的情況。法官引用了英國上訴法院在 JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko 案中的判決，該案指出，若有充分理由相信被告表面上以信託形式持有的資產實際上屬於其本人，則可將強制令擴展至信託資產。法官認為，綜合本案證據，包括被告慣用信託結構、未能解釋巨額售股收益去向、以及其不誠實的行為記錄，足以構成「有充分理由相信」被告可能透過信託結構隱藏資產。因此，法官決定發出更廣泛的強制令，以防止不誠實的被告利用信託掩飾其真實資產。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了英國上訴法院的 JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] 1 WLR 888 案，該案確立了在有充分理由相信被告表面上以信託形式持有的資產實際上屬於其本人的情況下，凍結令可擴展至信託資產的原則。此外，判決也提及 Federal Bank of the Middle East Ltd v Hadkinson [2000] 1 WLR 1695 案，該案裁定標準凍結令不涵蓋為第三方實益持有的資產，以及 TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra [1992] 1 WLR 231 案，闡述了 Chabra 管轄權的原則。 ### 裁決與命令 法院批准了原告Delco的申請，發出擴大範圍的判後資產凍結強制令及附屬資產披露令。該命令明確涵蓋被告Fang以信託或代名人身份為第三方持有的資產，並要求披露此類資產。法院同時指示修改交叉承諾 (cross-undertaking)，以涵蓋因命令對任何受益人造成的損失，並要求原告通知已識別的受益人。關於訟費，由於原告在單方面申請中違反了實務指示，故單方面申請的訟費不予命令；雙方在雙方聆訊中的訟費亦不予命令。 ### 判決啟示 本判決強調，在極端特殊情況下，若有充分證據表明被告可能利用信託結構隱藏資產，法院可擴大資產凍結強制令的範圍，以涵蓋被告以信託或代名人身份為第三方持有的資產。這為原告提供了一個調查資產真實所有權的機會，以防止不誠實的被告規避強制令。判決也重申了在單方面申請中遵守實務指示的重要性，否則可能導致訟費不利裁決。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: DELCO PARTICIPATION B.V. v CHIHO ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP LIMITED and FANG ANKONG - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Coleman J - Date of Judgment: 8 January 2026 ### Factual Background The plaintiff, Delco Participation B.V. (Delco), successfully obtained judgments totaling HK$670 million against the defendant, Fang Ankong (Fang), in two actions. As Fang had not paid any of the sum, Delco applied for a post-judgment Mareva injunction and ancillary asset disclosure orders. Delco sought to extend the scope of the injunction to cover assets held by Fang as trustee or nominee for third parties, citing Fang's propensity to conceal assets. Fang opposed this extension, arguing there was insufficient evidence to justify such a wide-ranging order, and that standard freezing orders were adequate. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the court should extend the post-judgment Mareva injunction and ancillary asset disclosure orders to cover assets held by the defendant as a trustee or nominee for third parties. The plaintiff, Delco, argued that the defendant, Fang, had a tendency to conceal assets and a history of low commercial morality, justifying a wider injunction to prevent dissipation. The defendant, Fang, contended that the plaintiff lacked sufficient evidence to prove he held assets in trust, and that such extended orders should be exceptional. ### Ratio Decidendi Justice Coleman J analyzed the purpose and principles of Mareva injunctions, particularly concerning assets held by a defendant in trust. The judge referred to the English Court of Appeal's decision in JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko, which held that if there are proper grounds to believe that assets ostensibly held by a defendant in trust actually belong to them beneficially, the injunction can be extended to trust assets. The judge found that, viewed holistically, the evidence—including Fang's familiarity with trust structures, his failure to account for substantial sale proceeds, and his dishonest conduct—constituted 'good reason to suppose' that Fang might be hiding assets through trusts. Therefore, a wider form of injunction was granted to prevent unscrupulous defendants from using trusts to disguise their true assets. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The primary precedent cited was the English Court of Appeal decision in JSC BTA Bank v Solodchenko [2011] 1 WLR 888, which established the principle that a freezing order can extend to trust assets if there are proper grounds to believe that assets ostensibly held by a defendant in trust actually belong to them beneficially. The judgment also referenced Federal Bank of the Middle East Ltd v Hadkinson [2000] 1 WLR 1695, which ruled that standard freezing orders do not cover assets beneficially owned by third parties, and TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra [1992] 1 WLR 231, outlining the principles of Chabra jurisdiction. ### Decision & Orders The court granted Delco's application for an extended post-judgment Mareva injunction and ancillary asset disclosure order. The order explicitly covers assets held by Fang as a trustee or nominee for third parties and requires disclosure of such assets. The court also directed a variation of the cross-undertaking to cover losses incurred by any beneficiaries due to the order and mandated that Delco notify identified beneficiaries. Regarding costs, no order was made for the ex parte application due to Delco's breach of practice directions, and no order was made for the inter partes costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment highlights that in exceptional circumstances, where there is strong evidence suggesting a defendant may be using trust structures to conceal assets, a Mareva injunction can be extended to cover assets held by the defendant as a trustee or nominee for third parties. This provides plaintiffs with an opportunity to investigate the true ownership of assets and prevents dishonest defendants from circumventing injunctions. The judgment also reinforces the importance of adhering to practice directions in ex parte applications, as non-compliance can lead to adverse costs orders. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.