28th November 2025 – (Hong Kong) The insider trading case against film executive and actor Raymond Wong Pak-ming resumed at Eastern Magistrates’ Courts on Friday, with the defence seeking to exclude WhatsApp messages obtained from his sister’s mobile phone. Counsel argued that the Securities and Futures Commission (SFC) acted improperly by compelling Wong’s sister to disclose her passcode without first securing an additional warrant, and without informing her of her right to refuse or to consult a lawyer. Magistrate Ko Wai-hung will rule on the defence application on Monday.
Wong, 78, is accused of having, between 25thh August and 17th October 2017, encouraged or caused another person—his sister, Wong Kit-chun—to trade shares in Pegasus Motion Pictures Limited. At the time, he was the company’s chairman and controlling shareholder, allegedly in possession of inside information relating to the firm.
Senior counsel for the defence, Joseph Tse, submitted that requiring Wong’s sister to unlock her device infringed privacy rights protected under the Basic Law and human rights legislation. He contended that, despite SFC testimony that the passcode was handed over voluntarily, most citizens feel compelled to comply when confronted by enforcement officers, who do not typically make clear that individuals may refuse. In those circumstances, he said, any consent was not truly voluntary.
Relying on the Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Sham Wing-kan case, Tse argued that, save where obtaining a prior warrant is not reasonably practicable, law enforcement may not search digital content without a warrant—a principle he said applies equally to the SFC. Having entered with a warrant to seize the handset, investigators should, he maintained, have proceeded under section 183 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance to request the passcode and sought a separate warrant to examine specific electronic devices, rather than demanding the code on the spot.
Tse further argued that if section 191 of the Securities and Futures Ordinance were intended to permit the SFC to review mobile content, it would mirror provisions such as section 40(2)(b) of the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance by explicitly empowering officers to require disclosure of passwords during subsequent searches. He added that Wong’s sister was not told she could obtain legal representation during the search; by the time she consulted a lawyer, the passcode had already been surrendered and her rights had been compromised.
For the prosecution, senior counsel Derek Chan maintained that the entry warrant already encompassed inspection of the contents of mobile phones found on the premises. If the defence considers the warrant unconstitutional, he said, the appropriate course would be judicial review.
