were overdrawn but not by an amount which exceeded agreed overdraft limits. The defendant was charged (under Hong Kong legislation identical to the Theft Act 1968) with theft of choses in action, namely debts owed by the bank to the companies.

Lord Oliver of Aylmerton: ... It is not disputed that the debt due to the customer from his banker is a chose in action capable of being stolen and this equally applies to the sum which a customer is entitled to overdraw under contractual arrangements which he has made with the bank (see R v Kohn (1979) 69 Cr App R 395), though strictly in the latter case the chose in action is the benefit of the contractual arrangement with the bank. What is argued, however, is that, since as between the customer and the bank an unauthorised debit entry in the customer’s account is a mere nullity, the customer is deprived of nothing and therefore there has been no appropriation. Equally, it is said that, since the customer whose property is alleged to have been stolen has not in fact been deprived of anything, there cannot have been an intention permanently to deprive him of the property. Thus, it is argued, there were lacking two essential ingredients of the offences with which the defendant was charged and he was entitled to an acquittal.