First of its Kind – Successful Registration of PRC Judgment in Hong Kong under the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645)

HD Hyundai Infracore China Co., Ltd v Li Zhiwei [2025] HKCFI 5714 is among the first cases in which the Hong Kong Court has registered a PRC ruling under the Mainland Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (Reciprocal Enforcement) Ordinance (Cap. 645) (the "Ordinance"), since it came into effect on 29 January 2024.

The Ordinance expands the scope of Mainland judgments that can be registered and enforced in Hong Kong (For further reading on the requirements and applicability of the Ordinance, please click here). Notably, this case illustrates the possibility of enforcing a Mainland criminal judgment that includes an order for monetary compensation. 

Background

The Plaintiff was defrauded of RMB190 million. The fraudsters were convicted in the Intermediate People's Court of Wuhai City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region ("IPC") and were ordered to pay compensation in the amount of RMB190 million. The IPC handed down an enforcement ruling in 2023, confirming recovery of approximately RMB24.9 million and terminating the enforcement proceedings with liberty to resume upon new leads.

Following the commencement of the Ordinance in January 2024, the Plaintiff sought resumption of the enforcement proceedings. Accordingly, the IPC issued a criminal enforcement ruling (the "2024 Ruling") ordering the fraudsters to pay the outstanding balance of RMB162 million.

The Plaintiff applied ex parte in Hong Kong (HCRE 84/2024) to register the 2024 Ruling and the application was initially refused. The Plaintiff appealed and sought to adduce new factual and expert evidence (including an IPC explanatory note and an expert report) to certify the 2024 Ruling to be effective and enforceable.

The Court’s decision

The Court concluded that the 2024 Ruling containing the order for payment of monetary compensation was registrable under the Ordinance and that it was independent of the underlying criminal judgment.  

Key takeaways and implications

• This case demonstrates the Ordinance's practical utility for cross border enforcement where Hong Kong assets are implicated. The Ordinance is intended to provide a simple and quick process of registration without the Court scrutinising the evidence in the Mainland proceedings. 
• For the purpose of registration, a PRC court explanatory note or a PRC law opinion certifying the Mainland Judgment to be effective and enforceable is typically required.  
• The Ordinance applies equally to Mainland criminal judgments, if there is a final and operative payment obligation that is registrable.

Please reach out to your usual Withers contacts should you have any questions.