“Addressing claims against intermediary recipients of defrauded or mistakenly transferred funds, such as banks or financial institutions that subsequently transmit the funds onwards, has always been a difficult issue in the law of restitution. Recently, the Hong Kong High Court in Akbank TAS v Mainford Ltd and Others (Akbank) relied on Australian jurisprudence to recognize the availability of a ‘conduit pipe’ defence to restitution for such recipients who ‘mechanically’ received and transmitted funds onward. This recent decision in Hong Kong is not conducive to the development of the law of restitution and will cause confusion …” (more)
Connie HY Lee and Joshua Yeung, Reconsidering the ‘Conduit Pipe’ Defence to Unjust Enrichment Claims for Intermediary Recipients, Chinese Journal of Comparative Law, https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxab007. Published: 27 September 2021.