23rd December 2025 – (Hong Kong) A group of 11 indigenous villagers from Sha Tin, previously jailed for conspiring with a developer to exploit New Territories “Ding Rights” in a multi-million-dollar small house project at Tai Che Tsuen, have had their convictions quashed and sentences set aside by the Court of Appeal today (23rd December), almost a decade after first lodging their appeals.
The men, all New Territories indigenous villagers and holders of small house rights, were originally convicted in the District Court in 2015 of conspiracy to defraud over a HK$200 million small house development. They were sentenced to between two years six months and two years 10 months’ imprisonment. The case was the first in Hong Kong in which individuals were convicted in relation to the sale of “Ding Rights”.
In allowing the appeals, the judges held that the appellants’ arguments concerning alleged professional failings by their trial counsel were made out. The court stressed it was not yet clear whether the Department of Justice would seek any further legal action; should any application be made in future, the appellants would be informed. Some relatives and friends in the public gallery applauded upon hearing that all 11 appellants had been fully acquitted.
Under the New Territories Small House Policy, eligible male indigenous villagers may apply to build a three-storey “Small House” – also referred to in English as a “Village House” or “Indigenous Villager House” – within their village boundaries. The law requires applicants to make a statutory declaration confirming that they have not entered into any agreement with third parties or developers to transfer their land interests in connection with the application.
Developers use villagers’ rights over their homes to circumvent policy restrictions. In a typical arrangement, the developer structures the deal so that houses are constructed in the villagers’ names on land they own or claim to own, while the real economic benefits in both the land and the houses are transferred to the developer. The developer then markets and sells the completed properties for profit.
All 11 appellants are indigenous villagers with recognised small house rights. Between 2008 and 2011 they were alleged to have sold their “Ding Rights” to a developer for the Tai Che Tsuen small house estate, each receiving between HK$150,000 and HK$250,000 in consideration. In late 2015, they were convicted in the District Court of conspiracy to defraud and sentenced to custodial terms ranging from two years six months to two years 10 months.
Developer Li Yam‑pui, the driving force behind the Tai Che Tsuen project and one of the co‑defendants, was also found guilty of conspiracy to defraud and sentenced to three years’ imprisonment. He subsequently lodged his own appeal but died in 2021 before the matter was heard. The Court of Appeal formally discontinued his appeal, leaving 11 appellants before the court.
According to the prosecution at trial, Li sought to develop a small house estate at Tai Che Tsuen in Sha Tin between 2008 and 2011. Acting through two companies, he liaised with multiple indigenous villagers and entered into agreements with them. Under these arrangements, the villagers falsely represented that they owned or controlled the relevant plots of land, with a view to inducing the Lands Department to grant building licences.
Li and his associates also executed land transfer documents with the male villagers, which described the villagers as purchasing the land for HK$150,000 each. In reality, the villagers paid no money and did not genuinely acquire the sites. Instead, they received a fee while both sides told solicitors that monetary settlements would be handled privately.
The villagers’ understanding that they could sell their small house rights was influenced, in part, by discussions between the Heung Yee Kuk and the Government over the statutory declaration requirement. The Kuk had engaged with officials on the wording of the declaration, and it was said that then Secretary for Development Carrie Lam had agreed that certain financial matters would not be stated explicitly in the declaration, but instead be reflected in the licence conditions.
At first instance in 2015, District Judge Sham Siu‑man found all 12 defendants guilty. He held that although the Government later changed its stance and no longer required the same form of statutory declaration from male villagers, this did not alter the fundamental eligibility criteria for small house applications, namely that the applicant must truly have the right and land to build. In his reasoning, the men had used false representations, including executing sham land documents, to create the misleading impression that they genuinely met the criteria. The judge described their conduct as plainly dishonest and stressed that ding rights were intended to enable indigenous villagers to secure housing, not to provide a vehicle for profiteering in collusion with developers, which he said ran counter to the policy’s purpose.
The case unfolded against a wider legal and political backdrop. The legitimacy and constitutional status of ding rights have long been contentious. Civic activist Kwok Cheuk‑kin, dubbed the “Judicial Review King of Cheung Chau”, filed a judicial review challenge in 2015, arguing that indigenous villagers’ ding rights, protected under Article 40 of the Basic Law, might be unconstitutional or discriminatory.
Following their convictions in late 2015, the 11 villagers lodged appeals the same year. In December 2016, after serving about one year of their sentences, they were granted bail of HK$50,000 each pending appeal. Li later also filed an appeal and was granted bail in 2017.
The High Court heard Kwok’s judicial review in December 2018. In April 2019, Mr Justice Chow Ka‑ming delivered judgment, confirming that the Basic Law protects the lawful traditional rights and interests of New Territories indigenous villagers. The matter was ultimately taken to the Court of Final Appeal, which in November 2021 upheld the legality of ding rights and ruled that building small houses through private treaty grants and land exchanges was also constitutional.
While the constitutional litigation was progressing, the criminal appeals in the Tai Che Tsuen case were effectively put on hold. By the time the judicial review had run its course in 2021, Li had died, and the Court of Appeal struck out his appeal, leaving 11 indigenous appellants.
The appeal concerning the “small-house” arrangements was eventually listed for hearing in November 2022. Before the hearing, both the prosecution and the appellants applied at a pre-trial review to have two expert witnesses, Tony Lam and Christopher Robinson, re-designated as witnesses of fact.
Counsel for the appellants submitted that Robinson’s evidence demonstrated the Government had long been aware of such “small-house” schemes, and that this was relevant to assessing whether the appellants had acted dishonestly at the relevant time. A panel of three appeal judges agreed to admit affidavits from Lam and Robinson, but postponed any decision on whether they would be called to give evidence as factual witnesses.
Among the grounds of appeal advanced by the 11 men was an allegation that their trial counsel, senior barrister Wong Chi‑wai, had failed in his professional duties. During the 2022 hearing, a solicitor disclosed that none of the 11 appellants had actually paid legal fees for their defence at trial; the costs had instead been covered by the late Li and another unnamed individual.
The appellants claimed that Wong had not properly notified them of the trial dates, resulting in their collective absence from court and judicial criticism. Wong responded that informing defendants of hearing dates was not his responsibility. They further alleged that Wong had assured them he possessed a “secret weapon” and would call expert witnesses, but no such experts were ever called and the nature of the “secret weapon” was never explained. Wong later clarified that the “secret weapon” he referred to was Article 40 of the Basic Law, which he said he had raised in argument at trial. He maintained that he had chosen not to call expert evidence because, in a criminal prosecution, the burden of proof lies with the Crown, not the defence.
After lengthy delays linked to the parallel constitutional litigation and the complex issues raised on appeal, the Court of Appeal today ruled in favour of all 11 indigenous appellants, setting aside both their convictions and sentences. The decision effectively overturns the city’s first criminal convictions related to the sale of Ding Rights in a scheme and may have significant implications for the handling of similar cases in the future.
The post Sha Tin small house fraud case ends with 11 indigenous villagers cleared on appeal in landmark “Ding Rights” prosecution appeared first on Dimsum Daily.
No comments yet.