(Reported by Sing Tao Daily) Guo Wengui, a wealthy Chinese businessman in exile in the United States, was investigated by the Hong Kong police for allegedly laundering more than 32.9 billion Hong Kong dollars in black money with his sons, daughters and assistants through personal and company bank accounts.As a result, the bank accounts of several private companies held by Guo Wengui's daughter, Guo Mei, were frozen.One of the companies whose account was frozen was dissatisfied that the police had frozen its account for more than a year and still refused to unfreeze it, so it filed a petition for judicial review, asking the court to rule that the police’s actions violated the Basic Law and violated the company’s rights. The plaintiff company is Anton Development Co., Ltd. (Anton), and the defendant is the Commissioner of Police.The filing states that the Guo family invests through Anton, Hong Kong International Fund Investment Co., Ltd. (International Fund Investment) and related companies, including establishing a joint venture with Abu Dhabi’s sovereign wealth fund. Guo Mei is the partner of the first two companies.Sole Stakeholder and Director.The bank accounts of these companies have been frozen since July last year, including Anton's five DBS Bank accounts, but the bank did not provide an explanation.Three of these accounts hold US$93 million, HK$830 million and RMB 3 million respectively. The police applied for search warrants from August 1 to 2 last year to search the two companies of Anton and International Fund Investment. On the third day, they arrested Guo Wengui's secretary, Qu Guojiao, on suspicion of money laundering. She was later released on bail.Before the filing, Anton's bank account was still frozen due to police investigation.Anton has written several times asking the police to unfreeze the account, and explained that the funds in the company’s US dollar account came from the Abu Dhabi Sovereign Fund. However, the police never responded to Anton’s request, and instead requested to meet with Anton’s beneficial owner. The plaintiff believes that the police used the no consent letter to order the bank to freeze the account indefinitely, and its holders could not raise objections through the court. Therefore, the police’s actions violated the company’s property rights and violated Articles 6 and 105 of the Basic Law.strip.On the contrary, it is more reasonable and fair to apply to the court for a restraining order to freeze the account, so that the account holder can raise objections to the court.However, the police have arrested the person involved in the case and have not applied for a restraining order for more than a year.The plaintiff questioned that the police had never considered using a restraining order to handle the funds of Anton's five accounts, and claimed that the police had been negotiating with Anton in an unfriendly, procrastinating and evasive manner. The plaintiff continued to point out that there was a large amount of savings in his US dollar and Hong Kong dollar accounts, and the endless freezing of the accounts by the police had dealt a severe blow to Anton's operations and caused the company to suffer serious financial losses. Therefore, the police's actions were unreasonable and oppressive. Case No.: Constitutional and Administrative Litigation 1639-2018.