2nd November 2026 – (Hong Kong) A Sha Tin magistrate today formally cleared mainland Chinese Two-way Permit holder Zhou Furong, 42, of conspiracy charges over an alleged fake marriage and dishonest use of Union Hospital maternity services after prosecutors applied before trial to offer no evidence.
Ms Zhou faced two counts: conspiracy to defraud, and conspiracy to obtain services by deception. The case had been listed to open today at Sha Tin Magistrates’ Courts. Before the hearing began, the prosecution lodged a note seeking leave to offer no evidence. Temporary magistrate Mr Chan Yue-chow granted the application and ruled that she was not guilty on all charges. The mainland defendant followed the proceedings with the help of a Putonghua interpreter.
The first count alleged that, on a date in 2018 up to 20th April 2018, she conspired with Li Yinfeng and a person known as Alan to defraud the Director of Immigration and his officers. Through a marriage to Mr Li, it was said, she dishonestly told Immigration that she was coming to Hong Kong to visit and reunite with him, thereby inducing an entry approval that would otherwise not have been given.
The second count alleged that, over the same period and in the same places, she conspired with Mr Li and Alan to obtain Union Hospital’s postnatal delivery services by falsely claiming that Mr Li was the biological father of her unborn child.
In short, the case as charged painted a picture of a mainland visitor using a sham marriage both to enter Hong Kong and to secure private hospital birth care under a false paternal claim. Those remained allegations only; once the prosecution offered no evidence, the court recorded formal acquittals rather than hearing the trial.
The matter had originally been set for June this year. A key prosecution witness then went briefly out of contact. A day later the prosecution said the witness was ready to testify, but the defence objected to starting, saying the witness had a prior money-laundering conviction. The trial was adjourned to today. On the resumed date, instead of calling evidence, the prosecution asked the court to drop the case by offering no evidence.