FEHD colleagues sue over HK$28.91 million Mark Six dispute

Summary

Key Points

• The writ says 15 staff in the FEHD Market Modernisation Team orally agreed on 2 September to pool money for Mark Six, with winnings to be split by contribution ratio.12
• Senior superintendent Pau Chung-on (鮑仲安) allegedly first proposed the office lottery pool in late April to build team spirit, and Ling handled collection, record-keeping, ticket purchase and custody.123
• The disputed draw was funded by HK$1,650 in total, with members contributing from HK$20 to HK$300, while Ling said he put in HK$210.13
• Ling allegedly bought two HK$825 tickets using three-banker combinations, uploaded purchase records before the draw, and the pool later won HK$33.12 million.13
• Plaintiffs say Ling deleted chat records after the result, refused to show the winning ticket, and said he could choose not to share because others did not know the numbers bought.123
• The 14 plaintiffs are Pau Chung-on, Au Wai-ha, Chan Yiu-wa, Yan Ka-kit, Yeung Wing-chi, Tsang Hing-tung, Chan Chi-kin, Lam Tat-chi, Kwok Pui-la, Pang Wing-kwong, Fung Tsz-him, Luk Cheuk-yi, Tang Lai-tak and Ma Chi-wang, with Ling named as defendant.12 Sing Tao reported that all were attached to the FEHD’s Administration and Development Branch, Market Development Division, Market Modernisation Team at the time2
• According to the pleadings, the office pool began in early May after Pau’s proposal in late April. The first pooled purchase on 2 May cost HK$1,430 for a “three-banker, 13-leg” ticket and returned a small prize, reported as HK$1,760 by HK01 and am730, while Sing Tao reported HK$1,730.123 The group decided not to distribute that smaller payout and instead rolled it over into later draws until the fund was exhausted in September.13
• The plaintiffs say the group was then re-formed, with two earlier participants no longer contributing and three new colleagues joining, producing the 15-person arrangement at the centre of the case.13 On 2 September, members again contributed cash or Faster Payment System transfers, and Ling was entrusted to buy and hold the tickets on behalf of the group.12
• HK01 said Ling used the pooled money to buy two HK$5 unit tickets: one with 18, 33 and 45 as bankers and 10 legs, and another with 13, 17 and 41 as bankers and 11 legs, each costing HK$825.1 am730 likewise reported two tickets in “three-banker, 10-leg” and “three-banker, 11-leg” formats, and said screenshots of the purchases were sent to some plaintiffs on WhatsApp3
• The claim says the winning half-share first prize paid HK$33.12 million, and that based on the contribution records, individual entitlements ranged from about HK$400,000 to HK$6.02 million, while Ling’s own share should have been about HK$4.21 million.13 The plaintiffs are seeking a total of about HK$28.91 million from Ling.123
• The writ further alleges that after the draw result was announced, Ling deleted group messages including screenshots showing members’ contributions.1 On 7 September, during a meeting at the workplace, he allegedly said in substance that the others did not know what numbers he had bought and he could choose not to pay them, and that if he had won a full HK$60 million-plus jackpot he would have left, but with a half-share win of HK$30 million-plus he would distribute money according to his conscience.123
• The plaintiffs say Ling later refused to produce the winning ticket, said he would go on leave and would only deal with the matter after 13 September.1 am730 also reported that he at one stage said the actual stake had been HK$2,000.3 They accuse him of breach of agreement, breach of trust, fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment, and are asking the court to declare that the ticket was jointly owned and that HK$28.91 million was held on trust for them.23
• Sing Tao reported that Ling was later arrested and released on bail pending further inquiries.2 The case number is HCA1824/20262

Why It Matters