Under section 275 of the Companies (Winding Up and Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance, if during the winding-up of a company liquidators discover that the business was carried on with intent to defraud creditors (or for any fraudulent purpose), then they can apply to the court for a declaration holding those individuals responsible personally liable. This provision offers a mechanism for creditors and liquidators to seek redress and recover losses from those responsible, usually directors, preventing them from being able to hide behind the corporate veil.
For many years courts seemed reluctant to make such findings, usually because of the applicant’s inability to prove one of the key elements, dishonesty. This is because the required “intent to defraud” involves a subjective test, rather than an objective one. The difficulty in establishing subjective dishonesty has often deterred liquidators from pursuing proceedings, even in cases where there was (arguably) a strong basis for recovering compensation from directors or others.
On 22 November 2024, Hong Kong witnessed its first reported judgment on fraudulent trading in the case of Re Days Impex Ltd and Re Days International Ltd [2024] HKCFI 3386, when a director was held liable for participating in the carrying on of the business with the intent to defraud creditors. This landmark decision is encouraging for liquidators and creditors and provides helpful guidance on the legal principles governing fraudulent trading.
Background
The case involved two companies, Days Impex Limited and Days International Limited, which were wound up in 2011 after being placed into provisional liquidation. The liquidators discovered that the companies’ directors, including Mr. Mahesh Nanik Dayaram, had procured fraudulent loans totaling over US$51 million.
The fraudulent scheme involved fictitious transactions with a purported supplier, Oscoda Electronics Limited, whereby funds obtained from import loans were funneled back to the companies to repay existing debts, in what was essentially a circular flow of funds. This scheme was designed to mislead creditors, particularly banks, about the companies’ financial health. The liquidators commenced proceedings against Mr. Dayaram, seeking declarations of liability and compensation for the losses incurred by creditors.
Elements of fraudulent trading, burden of proof
The court revisited the elements of fraudulent trading, which require the plaintiff to prove that:
(1) certain business of the subject company was being carried on with intent to defraud creditors, or for any fraudulent purpose; and
(2) the defendant was knowingly a party to the carrying on of such business in such a manner.
As noted, proving “subjective dishonesty” on the part of the defendant is often challenging for the claimant. It has to be shown that the defendant either had an intension to defraud, or else acted with reckless indifference as to whether creditors were defrauded. A distinguishing feature of this case was that Mr. Dayaram had already been convicted on nine counts of conspiracy to defraud in relation to the same transactions. In the criminal proceedings it had been established that the transactions were fictitious, involving no underlying goods, and that Mr. Dayaram acted dishonestly as a party to the fraudulent scheme. As a result, the court held that the burden of proof shifted to Mr. Dayaram to demonstrate that the transactions were genuine or that he was not knowingly involved in the fraud.
Decision
The court concluded that the transactions were fraudulent and relied upon the conviction which found that the companies made false representations to the banks claiming Oscoda was a genuine supplier and submitted false invoices to obtain loans.
It was further found that the proceeds were funneled through Oscoda and back to entities associated with the companies, primarily to repay previous loans.
The court relied on the conviction and concluded that Mr. Dayaram was knowingly a party to the fraud. Further, the evidence showed that:
(1) Mr. Dayaram had direct control over Oscoda or knowingly acted in concert with Oscoda to perpetrate the fraud;
(2) he was the head of the Accounts and Finance Department of the group, which gave him knowledge of the fraudulent loan applications; and
(3) he was actively involved in orchestrating the circular flow of funds, which was a central element of the fraud.
Mr. Dayaram failed to produce substantive evidence to refute these findings, and the court declared that he was knowingly a party to the fraudulent business practices and held him to be personally liable for the debts of the companies directly attributable to the fraud.
Comment
Notwithstanding the features of this case, and the shift in the burden of proof as a result of the defendant’s prior conviction, the judgment establishes an important precedent for fraudulent trading cases in Hong Kong. It delivers a clear message that individuals who knowingly conduct business with the intent to defraud creditors will face serious legal consequences, will not be able to hide behind the company, and may have to pay the price of their wrongdoings.
Ian De Witt, Troy Greig and Jane Du
If you would like to discuss any of the matters raised in this article, please contact:
On 10 April 2024, The Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”), Hong Kong’s highest court, delivered its ruling in Tam Sze Leung & Ors v Commissioner of Police [2024] HKCFA 8, affirming the validity of the Hong Kong Police’s Letter of No Consent (“LNC”) regime. This decision provides significant relief to victims of fraud and also brings clarity to the Police and practitioners involved in asset tracing and recovery.
In our previous article we reviewed the scope and nature of the LNC regime and discussed the Court of Appeal’s ruling overturning the Court of First Instance’s decision which had held that such regime was unlawful and unconstitutional. For details, please click here.
Background
In Tam Sze Leung, the appellants were family members and maintained several bank accounts with banks in Hong Kong. They were suspected by the Securities and Futures Commission of having committed stock market manipulation through illegal “pump and dump” activities and arranging for other persons to provide false stock trading tips or insider information to the public, thereby earning a profit at the expense of investors who had been misled by their false information. In assisting the SFC’s investigation, the Hong Kong Police issued LNCs to banks where the appellants held accounts to preserve funds pending further investigation.
The appellants applied for leave to seek judicial review to challenge the Police’s decision to issue and maintain the LNCs, and to fail or refuse to consent to the withdrawal of any funds from their accounts. The application was heard by Coleman J who upheld aspects of the appellants’ challenge on constitutional grounds and on the basis the regime was ultra vires. However, by a decision dated 14 April 2023, the Court of Appeal allowed the Police’s appeal, upholding the validity of the LNC regime.
The Court of Final Appeal’s decision
The appellants were granted leave to appeal to the CFA on the basis the issues at stake were of general public importance. The CFA was invited to consider four issues:
Q1 – Whether the LNC regime is ultra vires and/or whether the LNCs in question were issued for an improper purpose.
Q2 – Whether the LNC regime fulfils the requirement of being prescribed by law and whether it imposes proportionate restrictions on fundamental rights under the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.
Q3 – Whether the operation of the LNC regime is procedurally unfair.
Q4 – Whether the case of Interush Ltd v Commissioner of Police was correct in holding that the LNC regime is a necessary and proportionate restriction on the right of enjoyment of private property under the Basic Law.
The CFA answered these questions as follows: Q1: No. Q2: Yes. Q3: No. Q4: Interush adopted an analysis which the Court of Final Appeal does not fully support. However, Interush arrived at the correct result.
Below is a summary of the Court’s reasoning.
The LNC regime is not ultra vires and is for proper purpose
The CFA clarified that authorisation for the LNC regime stems from Section 10 of the Police Force Ordinance (PFO) which empowered the Police to take lawful measures to prevent dissipation of suspected proceeds of crime. The appellants’ argument was therefore flawed as it wrongly premised Section 25A(2) of the Organised and Serious Crimes Ordinance (OSCO) as the basis for assessing whether the LNC regime is ultra vires.
The CFA also confirmed the Court of Appeal’s ruling that the LNC regime does not involve the Police freezing or ordering the banks to freeze the accounts. It is the banks’ decision – driven by its own wish to meet its anti-money laundering obligations and to avoid criminal, regulatory and reputational sanctions – to disable and freeze its customer’s account.
On this analysis and given that the LNC regime only serves as a temporary and provisional measureto secure property believed to be the proceeds of crime, the LNC regime is not ultra vires and is not a misuse of (and instead is consistent with) the powers conferred by the PFO.
The LNC regime does not infringe any fundamental rights
The CFA also rejected the appellants’ constitutional challenge that the operation of the LNC regime has infringed their fundamental rights to property on the basis that no such rights are engaged – the Police do not by their acts (in operating the LNC regime) freeze or make a “crucial contribution” to the bank’s decision to freeze or continue freezing the funds in the relevant accounts.
The CFA went further to say that even if the Police action did have the effect of “freezing” the accounts, such actions are prescribed by law as they are clearly governed by accessible provisions (the PFO). The LNC regime is also “undoubtedly” rationally connected with the achievement of the legitimate aim at both domestic and international levels – to secure suspect assets pending investigation and to comply with Hong Kong’s international obligations to put in place an effective anti-money laundering scheme. Given its limited nature and finite duration, the LNC regime is therefore a proportionate measure which reflects a “reasonable balance between the anti-money laundering aims of society and the protection of individual property rights”.
No procedural unfairness
The CFA also rejected the appellants’ complaint that the LNC regime lacks procedural fairness. In light of the clear statutory purpose of OSCO to avoid prejudicing investigations, the Police are fully entitled to maintain confidentiality of their investigations. The Court said that it would be a defiance of common sense to suggest that Police investigation of suspected money laundering should be treated as if the Police were conducting a “suit at law” (the phrase employed in the Bill of Rights) involving a public hearing in some adjudicative forum, giving the suspects notice, reasons and an opportunity to make representations.
Furthermore, the CFA determined that the appellants were not in fact deprived of their rights to make representations – they had been repeatedly requested to assist in the investigations and given the opportunity to dispel the suspicion. It has also been open to the appellants throughout to seek relief against the banks in court for withholding their funds and to resort to the courts by bringing judicial review proceedings against the Police.
Not necessary to assess the correctness of Interush
The CFA considered that the correctness or otherwise of the Interush decision was not relevant to the appellants’ appeal as the appellants’ challenges are only confined to the validity of the LNC regime, not to the constitutionality of certain provisions of OSCO. The CFA did not see it necessary to proceed with the proportionality assessment conducted in Interush.
Key takeaways
The CFA decision not only affirms the operational framework of the LNC regime, it also underscores the crucial role of such regime in combating fraud and money laundering, and maintaining Hong Kong’s reputation as a global financial centre.
The upholding of the lawfulness of the LNC regime is undoubtedly welcomed by victims of fraud. In the modern world where funds can be dissipated so quickly, the LNC regime, which has the practical effect of causing banks to immediately freeze the relevant bank account, will remain a vital instrument for practitioners and fraud victims alike to preserve funds pending the victim’s application for a civil injunction and pursuing tracing and recovery relief in the Hong Kong Courts.
How we can help
Our fraud and assets tracing team regularly represents clients in complex, high-value, and multi-jurisdictional fraud cases, including through applications to the Hong Kong Court for urgent disclosure and injunction orders. We maintain close relationships with a network of leading practitioners in many other jurisdictions to support our domestic and international asset tracing and recovery practice.
Any victim of fraud seeking relief, or a bank account holder adversely affected or with concerns that they might be adversely affected by a Letter of No Consent, should contact our partners Troy Greig, Jeff Lane, and Pamela Mak.
Robin Darton, Jeff Lane and Adam Hoi
If you would like to discuss any of the matters raised in this article, please contact:
Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.
We are pleased to say that the firm is well represented in rankings published in the 2023 edition of Who’s Who Legal (WWL). in the fields of Restructuring and Insolvency; Asset Recovery; Labour and Employment; and Pensions and Benefits.
Partners Ian De Witt, Robin Darton, Pamela Mak, Jeff Lane, and Russell Bennett all feature in the rankings.
Asset Recovery
Ian De Witt and Jeff Lane are ranked as Global Elite Thought Leaders under Asset Recovery, With the publication noting that “Ian is persistent in finding the best solutions for his clients” and that “Jeff understands the implications arising from multi-jurisdictional cases“. Jeff is also ranked as a Global Elite Thought Leader in the WWL Thought Leaders Global Elite Asset Recovery Guide 2023. Robin Darton and Pamela Mak are also recommended as Global Leaders.
Restructuring and Insolvency
Ian De Witt and Robin Darton rank as Thought Leaders in Restructuring and Insolvency and are recommended as Global Leaders.
Labour and Employment, Pensions and Benefits
Russell Bennett is listed as a Thought Leader and recommended as a Global Leader for Labour and Employment, with the publication noting that “Russell is an excellent practitioner.” Russell is also recommended as a Global Leader in the field of Pensions and Benefits.
On 14 April 2023, the Hong Kong Court of Appeal delivered its decision in Tam Sze Leung & Ors v Commissioner of Police [2023] HKCA 537, overturning the Court of First Instance’s decision which had held that the Letter of No Consent (“LNC”) regime – a longstanding practice operated by the Hong Kong Police which had the effect of creating an immediate if informal freeze on suspicious bank accounts – was, inter alia, unlawful.
Hong Kong is a major money laundering centre and is frequently utilised by fraudsters as a channel to receive payments made by the victims before the monies are dissipated or onward transferred. Thousands of bank accounts in Hong Kong have been used to collect and launder billions of dollars representing proceeds of crime in the past years. The availability to the Police of the power to issue LNCs was an essential part of every fraud and asset recovery lawyer’s arsenal of weapons in assisting the victims of fraud in Hong Kong. The loss of that power created great uncertainty for the Police and practitioners alike.
The decision of the Court of Appeal is therefore a significant relief to victims of fraud, as the LNC regime – which had previously been pivotal in temporarily “freezing” fraudsters’ bank accounts allowing the victims time to take action to preserve and recover their stolen assets – is restored and will continue to operate.
What is the LNC regime?
The LNC regime is derived from sections 25 and 25A of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (Cap.455) (the “OSCO”), and operates subject to the relevant procedures set out in the Hong Kong Police’s Force Procedures Manual (the “Manual”).
Sections 25 and 25A of the OSCO make it an offence for a bank to deal with property that is known or is reasonably believed to represent the proceeds of crime. A bank that has knowledge that or suspects that property held in an account maintained by the bank represents the proceeds of crime is obliged to make disclosure of that information to an authorised officer or face criminal liability. Further, a bank that allows monies to be dissipated from an account with notice of a fraud can be held civilly liable to restore such funds.
In practice, a bank (or other financial institution) with knowledge of a fraud would discharge this obligation by filing a suspicious transaction report (“STR”) with the Joint Financial Intelligence Unit (“JFIU”), a government division jointly staffed by the Hong Kong Police and the Customs & Excise Department. Upon receipt of the STR, the Head of JFIU – a superintendent of the Hong Kong Police – may exercise the power to either give or withhold consent for the bank to deal with the account. In the event that the Head of JFIU does not consent for the bank to deal with the account, he will issue a letter, commonly referred to as the Letter of No Consent, to the bank indicating that he does not consent to any dealings with the account.
An LNC can be issued very quickly and normally lasts no more than 6 months. During that period, the Hong Kong Police are expected to progress their investigations and undertake regular monthly reviews of the continuation of the LNC. The Police are also expected to obtain a restraint or confiscation order against the accounts concerned to replace the LNC and thereby continue restricting the operation of the accounts.
What is the Tam Sze Leung case about?
In Tam Sze Leung, the applicants were family members and maintained several bank accounts with banks in Hong Kong. They were suspected by the Securities and Futures Commission of having committed stock market manipulation through illegal “pump and dump” activities and arranging for other persons to provide false stock trading tips or insider information to the public, thereby earning a profit at the expense of investors who had been misled by their false information. In assisting the SFC’s investigation, the Hong Kong Police issued LNCs against the applicants’ bank accounts to preserve such profits as had been generated, identifying the proceeds of crime pending further investigation.
When the applicants’ judicial review of the decision of the Commissioner of Police (to issue and maintain the LNC) was heard at The Court of First Instance before the Honourable Mr Justice Coleman, the Judge held that three out of six grounds advanced by the applicants were made out and declared that the LNC regime was (1) ultra vires of OSCO; (2) not prescribed by law; and (3) involved a disproportionate restriction of the constitutional right to property under the Basic Law. The Court also explained its understanding of how the LNC impacted the bank – by causing it not to deal with the account, thereby effectively causing the bank to de facto ‘freeze’ the account.
The Court of First Instance’s decision created uncertainty about the validity of Letters of No Consent. Victims of fraud, among others, were concerned that all Letters of No Consent could be withdrawn by the Hong Kong Police without warning at any time, or could be challenged by the account holders through judicial review proceedings on the grounds upheld by Coleman J at first instance.
What is the Court of Appeal’s decision?
The Commissioner of Police appealed against the Court of First Instance’s decision.
The Court of Appeal found itself in “respectful disagreement” with the Court of First Instance Judge in relation to the grounds he upheld. In short, all of the grounds put forward by the applicants to challenge the LNC regime were rejected by the Court of Appeal. It upheld the operation of the LNC regime as lawful, constitutional and proportionate.
Importantly, the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the LNC regime is not a “secret, informal and unregulated asset freezing power”. On the contrary, the object of the LNC regime was to deter criminal activity by restricting access to the proceeds of crime and that this in itself was a legitimate societal aim.
In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal considered itself bound by its previous decision in Interush Ltd v Commissioner of Police [2019] HKCA 70, and endorsed its ruling that the LNC regime “is part and parcel of the measures used to combat organised crime in money laundering”.
The Court of Appeal also clarified that an account is de facto“frozen” by an LNC not because there is any enforceable order made by the Police that operates to restrain a bank from operating the account, but because a bank with notice of the fraud had itself chosen to not comply with its customer’s instructions due to its own concern about potential exposure to criminal liability under the OSCO and civil liability to restore dissipated funds if it dealt with property representing the proceeds of crime. In other words, the Hong Kong Police have no power – by virtue of the LNC regime or otherwise – to compel the banks to take or refrain from taking any steps in relation to its customers’ accounts. Instead, the police are empowered by OSCO by issuing an LNC to notify the bank that they do not consent to funds in a subject account from being dissipated, or alternatively for the JFIU to give consent to the bank dealing with the account, and thereby giving the bank immunity from criminal liability.
The Court of Appeal also expressed the view that the Hong Kong Police’s power under the LNC regime is not unfettered. The Court of Appeal noted that the Hong Kong Police’s internal guidance over the exercise of the LNC regime provides “sufficient constraints to guard against arbitrary or capricious refusal, and sufficient signposts to give guidance for a citizen, with legal advice, to anticipate the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise.”
Key takeaways
The upholding of the LNC regime will be welcomed by victims of fraud, who continue to benefit from the restoration of the LNC regime. Time is of the essence for victims of fraud to recover their stolen assets. The LNC regime, which has the practical effect of causing the bank to immediately freeze the relevant bank account, will continue to be a vital instrument for practitioners and fraud victims alike to preserve stolen assets pending the victim’s application for a civil injunction in the Hong Kong Courts.
In addition, the LNC regime provides a cost efficient resource for fraud victims. It is common for victims to rely on the LNC when they do not have the financial resources to apply for an injunction order to restrain the movement of the recipients’ bank accounts pending civil recovery of the stolen monies, or where the amounts involved are not sufficient to justify incurring the costs of applying for injunction.
Having said that, this matter concerns the core constitutional right to property and therefore is of great public importance, it is still possible that the applicants will challenge the Court of Appeal’s decision and appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. We will closely monitor this space.
How we can help
Our fraud and assets tracing team regularly represents clients in complex, high-value, and multi-jurisdictional fraud cases, including through applications to the Hong Kong Court for urgent disclosure and injunction orders. We maintain close relationships with a network of leading practitioners in many other jurisdictions to support our domestic and international asset tracing and recovery practice.
Any victim of fraud seeking relief, or a bank account holder adversely affected or with concerns that they might be adversely affected by a Letter of No Consent, should contact our partners Jeff Lane and Pamela Mak.
Jeff Lane, Sharina Mahtani, Adam Hoi and Ling Meng
If you would like to discuss any of the matters raised in this article, please contact:
Disclaimer: This publication is general in nature and is not intended to constitute legal advice. You should seek professional advice before taking any action in relation to the matters dealt with in this publication.
Tanner De Witt is delighted once again to be recognised by Chambers & Partners in their inaugural 2023 Greater China Region Guide for each of its main practice areas. Please see full results and editorial commentary below.
Corporate/M&A: Independent Hong Kong Firms (Band 2) Full ranking here.
Tanner De Witt remains part of a global referral network with elite law firms, frequently handling cross-border mandates. Its services cover the full range of corporate and commercial matters, including investments, joint ventures and M&A transactions. The team is strong in dealing with regulatory compliance work related to corporate transactions. Tanner De Witt is additionally able to assist clients on venture capital transactions, as well as restructurings and reorganisations. The firm counts ZV France and Newborn Town among its major clients.
Strengths One client comments: “I always have very efficient and responsive communication with Tanner De Witt.”
Another client compliments the team’s “very commercial and practical advice without complicating the issues.”
Work highlights
Tanner De Witt assisted Qima in its acquisition of an inspection services provider.
Eddie Lookwins praise for his handling of cross-border M&A, joint venture establishments and private equity transactions. He is regularly mandated by clients from the manufacturing, financial services and life science industries.
One client says “Eddie not only has vast experience of corporate transactions in Hong Kong, but also has a deep understanding of our business.”
While another adds, “He is easy to communicate with and very willing to help.”
Edmond Leungfocuses his practice on multi-jurisdictional private equity and M&A, and frequently acts on behalf of international companies and investors. He has extensive experience advising on acquisitions, divestments and corporate reorganisations. Clients comment that he is “technically sound but pragmatic as well in his advice to deliver effective legal solutions” while maintaining “good client relations and [being] very good to work with.”
Tim Drew co-leads the corporate department of Tanner De Witt. He has over two decades’ experience in the Hong Kong corporate market, handling all manner of cross-border corporate and transactional mandates, including M&A, disposals and shareholders’ agreements.
“Tim takes a highly commercial approach combined with a positive ‘can do’ attitude. Tim gets deals done and is a pleasure to work with. He is accessible and I can always get hold of him” says a client.
“Tim has a good awareness of the potential commercial pitfalls we may face and always has a good solution for us.”
Dispute Resolution: Litigation (International Firms) (Band 4) Full ranking here.
What the team is known for
Tanner De Witt is a respected, independent Hong Kong firm, acknowledged for its broad commercial disputes offering. Its areas of expertise include professional negligence claims, shareholder disputes, debt and asset recovery, fraud, and contentious trusts and probate. The team often acts for clients in the financial services sector, international investors and high net worth individuals and families. Its key clients include Kroll, KPMG and FraudNet.
Strengths A client comments that “The team are all very capable and articulate and offer immediate responses, even when on holiday. They are also aware of latest events and case law that will have an impact on the matters at hand.”
A different client praises the team for being: “always ready with documents and advice and the team all worked well together.”
A third happy client states: “Tanner De Witt always offers exemplary levels of service and is one of our go-to Hong Kong firms. They are always commercial and responsive.”
Work highlights
Tanner De Witt acted for a Chinese cement producer in a longstanding shareholders’ dispute case.
Jeff Lane is well versed in fraud claims and various tracing and recovery actions. He is also experienced with cyber-fraud claims. A client states: ““He’s very experienced and efficient, with a good network.”
Mark Sideis head of the firm’s dispute resolution team. He is known for handling employment disputes, as well as contentious regulatory matters and white-collar crime investigations. Chambers Asia notes that Mark is “strategically very strong, mindful of our concerns and [he] always explains the contributing factors to his advice”.
Pamela Makis co-head of Tanner De Witt’s China practice group in Hong Kong and often acts on contentious probate cases, as well as shareholder disputes and asset tracing and recovery. One source praises her client skills, observing that “she’s very skilled at handling even the most demanding client.” Other clients comment that she “is excellent at handling sensitive matters.” and that “She’s very good at managing complex matters and gives practical and commercial advice.”
Richard Wilmot is a consultant in Tanner De Witt’s Hong Kong office. He frequently acts for lenders, bondholders and investors on recovery and enforcement actions.
One client says “working with Richard is a very good and interactive experience.” Another saying, “I have worked with Richard for many years. He and his team have never failed to solve any issues referred to him”
Employment: Hong Kong-based (International Firms) (Band 2)
What the team is known for
The strong contentious employment team at Tanner De Witt possesses notable expertise representing employees in high-profile litigation cases. It is active on matters involving individuals employed in Hong Kong, including supporting foreign domestic workers on a pro bono basis, but it also advises employers on work policies, contracts and post-employment restrictions. Tanner De Witt is highly active on cases related to race and sex discrimination, and white-collar crime investigations.
Strengths One client appreciates its “ability to translate a complex matter into bite-sized issues for discussions and considerations.”
One impressed interviewee finds the team’s analyses “clear and concise.” Another client observes: “The employment team works closely with their civil litigation team and provides fast response on contentious matters.” While another adds, “They offer exceptional service and attention, with humour when needed!”
Russell Bennett is well placed to represent clients in disputes arising out of discrimination and harassment claims and contested terminations, with a focus on advising clients from the financial services sector. One happy client reports: “Russell is one of the few employee-friendly lawyers in town. His advice is practical and covers all corners.” Another source states: “Russell is a very experienced lawyer specialising in employment law.” And clients comment that “Russell is a great adviser. He’s realistic, reliable and totally practical.”
Family/Matrimonial (International Firms) (Band 3)
What the team is known for
Tanner De Witt is an independent Hong Kong practice offering advice on a range of family and matrimonial matters. The firm is experienced in handling divorce proceedings and child-related cases. It assists on cross-border abduction matters, with particular expertise in cases involving the Hague Convention. The team also provides support in nuptial agreements and trust arrangements.
Strengths “The team has a hands-on, friendly and practical approach. They have the skills to break down stubborn parties and barriers and seek resolution with ease.”
Clients appreciate the team for “care(ing) about their clients and try to protect them. Their preparation is very on point, and they are knowledge of the law and procedures.”
Joanne Brown draws widespread support from sources and is especially skilled in divorce, custody and nuptial matters. Her expertise in cross-jurisdictional matters is regularly sought by clients. Clients find her to be “extremely fair and very practical” adding that “she has a very good strategic mind.” Another source also comments that “Joanne is solution-oriented, so she doesn’t shy away from telling the truth. She is respected among solicitors.”
Restructuring/Insolvency (International Firms) (Band 2)
What the team is known for
Tanner De Witt fields a well-established independent Hong Kong restructuring and insolvency team that holds a strong reputation, particularly in relation to high-stakes contentious insolvency cases. The team regularly handles complex domestic and cross-jurisdictional litigations. Its clients include distressed companies and liquidators.
Strengths “Tanners De Witt is a big team and able to deploy team members in larger situations.” Sources also comment that the team are “excellent problem solvers.”
Work highlights
Tanner De Witt assisted a private bank and asset management firm, as petitioning creditor, with obtaining a bankruptcy order against an individual who held directorships in several companies listed in Hong Kong.
Ian De Witt‘s deep expertise spans both the advisory and contentious aspects of restructuring and insolvency-related work. He is a counsel of choice among liquidators and creditors. Clients see him as an “excellent problem solver” and that “He is commercial, approachable and a fountain of knowledge in Hong Kong law and procedure.”
Robin Darton is a highly regarded authority on international insolvency and liquidation matters. He offers impressive expertise handling contentious and non-contentious cases for liquidators and debtors.
Sources speak highly of Robin as “he knows very well how things work in the Hong Kong market, and what you need, be it legal advice or strategy.”
A client comments: “Robin has buckets of experience, and is technically strong.”
TMT (International Firms) (Band 4)
What the team is known for
Tanner De Witt’s TMT practice offers considerable experience in multi-jurisdictional technology transactions and offers technology businesses broad legal support through all stages of their growth and development. Key clients include DaRen Biotech, Bowtie Life Insurance and Brinc.
Strengths Sources praised the team for their timely, high-quality work: “Things move fast in our world, and the team at Tanner De Witt move fast with us, though urgency does not change work quality. Their documents are well laid out, and in language non-lawyers can understand. Their advice is clear and actionable. They are very reliable.” While a client states: “I was impressed with the turnaround time, the thoughtfulness of the documents, the responsiveness to my comments and the partner-level attention.”
Work Highlights
Tanner De Witt advised Nomura on the extension and modification of a transaction with Hitachi Vantara to provide the bank with global data capacity on a utility compute basis.
Pádraig Walsh
He received high praises from sources, stating: “Padraig was a joy to work with. He is responsive, smart, friendly and very accommodating of special requests – an excellent lawyer.” While clients admire his expertise, commenting that “He is a very highly skilled IT law expert with whom it is a pleasure to work.” Also that “He has in-depth knowledge of conducting venture capital investments and deep experience in various commercial and business issues. Mr. Walsh always considers our business needs and provides us with practical advice.” Speaking highly of Pádraig as he “has fulfilled and surpassed (their) expectations for legal expertise.”
For an archive of Tanner De Witt’s Chambers rankings, please click here.
Tanner De Witt, 17th Floor, Tower One, Lippo Centre, 89 Queensway, Admiralty, Hong Kong
