Huang Haoyu v. Kazeroun Nasir

On 26 October 2026, Deputy District Judge Zabrina Lau of the District Court handed down judgment in Huang Haoyu v Kazeroun Nasir (DCJ 5554/2019; [2026] HKDC 1726), allowing the plaintiff's claims in constructive trust and unjust enrichment and ordering repayment of US$77,474 with interest. Mr Ian Yu, instructed by Ng & Shum, acted for the plaintiff.

The trial concerned money lost to an impersonation fraud. Huang Haoyu, a PRC student at UCSD, was told by callers posing as Consulate staff and detectives that he faced detention unless he transferred US$95,000 of tuition money through the ICAC. The sum went to an account in the name of Huang Hsin-feng, from which US$77,474 was paid into the defendant's Bank of China (Hong Kong) account as one of three tranches totalling US$145,000. Kazeroun Nasir said the money came through a currency exchange arranged with Guangzhou Noble Consulting Services (NCL) and Tim Wong, funded by RMB 1,004,850 of his own funds. He denied knowledge of the fraud and pleaded bona fide purchase for value without notice and change of position. The parties agreed six issues but no facts.

The Court held that: (1) The fraud occurred; the plaintiff was honest though careless, and contemporaneous documents corroborated his account (§§33, 46-48). (2) The exchange as pleaded did not exist. Mr Yang, the “T-shirt Man”, Niu and Huang were not agents of NCL, which was only a middleman. The defendant's phrase “my accountant from Noble Consulting”, the WeChat messages and the absence of any NCL account or records of NCL's agreement told against agency (§§61-70). (3) The US$95,000 was traceable into the US$77,474 held on constructive trust, the Re Oatway presumption covering the small balance left in Huang's account (§§71-75). (4) The bona fide purchaser defence failed. The defendant had constructive notice under the third Papadimitriou scenario: he never verified strangers met through WeChat, dealt through personal accounts and asked nothing about identity or source of funds. The red flags were inconsistent with his cautious dealings with licensed exchangers, and he had wilfully turned a blind eye. In the alternative he failed to show valuable consideration passing to Huang or Huang's nominee (§§79-106). (5) Mistake was not the applicable unjust factor against a stranger, following BCPE, but want of authority was, since Huang held the funds on constructive trust and passed them on without authority. Change of position failed because the payment to Niu preceded receipt, so no causative link was shown, and the defendant had not acted in good faith (§§110-130).

Judgment was entered for the plaintiff: a declaration that the defendant holds the sum on constructive trust, payment of US$77,474 or the Hong Kong dollar equivalent forthwith, interest at 1% above prime from 28 September 2018 to judgment and at judgment rate thereafter, and an order nisi for the plaintiff's costs with a certificate for counsel (§§132-134).

For practitioners, a second-tier recipient cannot rely on a “we usually do not ask” culture where identity, authority and source of funds are unverified. Keep authority evidence, source-of-funds checks and proof that consideration reached the transferor or its nominee. Without them, neither the bona fide purchaser nor the change of position defence will stand.