We use cookies to improve your website experience. To learn about our use of cookies and how you can manage your cookie settings, please see our Cookie Policy. By continuing to use the website, you consent to our use of cookies. Close

UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND ILLEGALITY: “INNOCENT” WRONGDOING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CHANGE OF POSITION DEFENCE

Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly

UNJUST ENRICHMENT AND ILLEGALITY: “INNOCENT” WRONGDOING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CHANGE OF POSITION DEFENCE Connie HY Lee * and Joshua Yeung † DBS Bank v Pan Jing Recent Hong Kong first instance decisions have consistently rejected the change of position defence raised by defendants who were mere recipients of defrauded sums. These otherwise innocent defendants who were not implicated in the fraud did not comply with local or foreign legislation or regulations in their change of position. This illegality made them “wrongdoers” in the words of Lord Goff of Chieveley in Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd , 1 barring the change of position defence. In Arrow ECS Norway AS v M Yang Trading Ltd , 2 the court rejected the change of position defence raised by various currency exchange operators with respect to their non-compliance with the licensing and due diligence requirements under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing Ordinance (Cap. 615) (“AMLO”) in Hong Kong. More recently in DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Ltd v Pan Jing , 3 the court applied Arrow ECS but went further, holding that a breach of People’s Republic of China (“PRC”) regulatory provisions (ie, outside the jurisdiction of Hong Kong) through “underground banking” transactions precluded the change of position defence. This case also marked a departure from the English position, where it has been held obiter that mere breaches of regulatory offences are insufficiently grave to bar the defence. 4 These decisions have entered unchartered territory by expansively interpreting the “wrongdoer” exception to the change of position defence. * Barrister, Des Voeux Chambers. † Queens’ College, University of Cambridge. 1. [1991] 2 AC 548 (HL) (“ Lipkin Gorman ”), 580C–D. This Comment is limited to discussing “wrongdoing” in the form of a defendant’s implication in some illegal activity that breaches local or foreign legislation or regulations. “Wrongdoing” in the form of a breach of duty (eg, tortious wrongdoing) will not be addressed. 2. [2018] HKCFI 975; [2018] 5 HKC 317 (“ Arrow ECS ”). 3. [2020] HKCFI 268 (“ Pan Jing ”), [61–70]. 4. Jeremy D Stone Consultants Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc [2013] EWHC 208 (Ch), [251]. 52

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, please enter your details below to log in.

Enter your email address to log in as a user on your corporate account.
Remember me on this computer

Not yet an i-law subscriber?

Devices

Request a trial Find out more