This piece was originally published on Practical Law and is republished with the permission of the publishers.
The principal competition legislation in Hong Kong is the Competition Ordinance (Cap 619) which came into full effect on 14 December 2015. The Competition Ordinance prohibits businesses (undertakings) from entering into agreements with other undertakings that prevent, restrict or distort competition in Hong Kong. It also prohibits businesses with a significant degree of market power from abusing their market power in a way which prevents, restricts or distorts competition in Hong Kong.
In 2008, Hong Kong’s Court of Final Appeal issued a landmark judgment in Koon Wing Yee v Insider Dealing Tribunal deciding that if a regulator is seeking a financial penalty, the individual or company being investigated is, for human rights purposes, facing a criminal charge and entitled to fundamental Bill of Rights protections.
Hong Kong’s competition law was being drafted at the time. The enforcement framework and law were fundamentally rewritten because of Koon. The Administration said that appropriate criminal safeguards, including fair trial, protection against self-incrimination and standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt, must be in place both during investigation and trial to meet the requirements of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. In 2019, in the first case to come to trial, Hong Kong’s Competition Tribunal agreed.
Earlier this year, the authority invited interested parties to provide information relevant to its investigation through an online survey. The regulator has similarly invited public comments on passenger car warranty terms and conditions.
This update was published as part of our quarterly newsletter, Asia Pacific Competition Highlights.
Hong Kong’s data privacy law, the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) (PDPO), has been amended to introduce “anti-doxxing” provisions. The new regime creates offences to curb doxxing acts, and empowers the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (“Commissioner”) to carry out criminal investigations, institute prosecutions and issue cessation notices. The changes came into effect on 8 October 2021.
Since finding that the Police’s use of a “No Consent Regime” (“Regime”) in freezing accounts that contain suspected proceeds of crime was unlawful and unconstitutional, the Hong Kong Court of First Instance has now handed down its decision on relief and costs in Tam Sze Leung & Ors v. Commissioner of Police [2022] HKCFI 772.
The Court declared that the Letters of No Consent (LNCs) in issue and the Regime “as operated” by the Police are: (i) ultra vires Sections 25 and 25A of the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance (OSCO) (Cap. 455); and (ii) incompatible with Articles 6 and 105 of the Basic Law, as the Regime as operated by the Police is not prescribed by law and is disproportionate
The Hong Kong Judiciary continued to further expand the scope of remote hearings and issued various guidance notes and guidelines to facilitate the operation of remote hearings since its first initiative during the General Adjournment Period (GAP) in 2020. In response to the fifth wave of COVID-19 in early 2022, the Judiciary implemented the second GAP on 7 March 2022 and issued its latest guidance note dated 25 March 2022 on hearing outside court rooms , which took effect on 28 March 2022. This alert provides an update on the development of remote hearings in Hong Kong.
The Securities and Futures Commission recently released the Consultation Conclusions on the Proposed Regulatory Regime for Depositaries of SFC-authorised Collective Investment Schemes and the Further Consultation on Proposed Amendments to Subsidiary Legislation and SFC Codes and Guidelines to Implement the Regulatory Regime for Depositaries of SFC-authorised Collective Investment Schemes. Whilst many of the proposals from the 2019 original consultation will be adopted without change, the SFC has refined its approach in several key areas to provide greater clarity to the industry. We summarise the key requirements that will be applicable to RA 13 licensees, the Consultation Conclusions and the new proposals for consultation in the Further Consultation.
The Court of First Instance has recently discussed the Court’s discretionary power in allowing private companies to be carved out from disqualification orders made against former directors of a listed company under s.214 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance (“SFO”). The Court retains discretion in deciding whether exemptions to disqualification orders should be granted in the circumstances. We discuss the principles and key factors considered by the Court in dealing with such carve-out applications below.
In today’s global marketplace, disputes are growing in number and complexity. Businesses are facing intense competition and must manage the risks and challenges in doing business locally and internationally. Higher accountability standards and tighter regulatory scrutiny increase exposure and vulnerability.
Hong Kong’s data privacy law, the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, has been amended to introduce “anti-doxxing” provisions. The new regime creates offences to curb doxxing acts, and empowers the Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data to carry out criminal investigations, institute prosecutions and issue cessation notices. The changes came into effect on 8 October 2021. The Commissioner made its first arrest under the doxxing regime on 13 December 2021.