Maryo Development Ltd v. Tsang Yau May and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 2297/2012 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 27 June 2019.
1. This is the trial of the consolidated proceedings commenced by the plaintiff (“Maryo”) against all the defendants (“D1”, “D2” and “D3”) for conspiracy to defraud Maryo, against D3 for knowing receipt of Maryo’s property, and against D1 and D2 for breach of fiduciary duties.
Cited by 6 cases · Cites 13 cases
|
HCA 2297/2012 & HCA 271/2013 [2019] HKCFI 1620 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 2297 OF 2012 ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE ACTION NO 271 OF 2013 ________________________ BETWEEN
________________________ (Consolidated by the Order of Master J. Wong on 30th August 2013) Before: Deputy High Court Judge MK Liu in Court Dates of Trial: 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29 May & 4 June 2019 Date of Judgment: 27 June 2019 __________________ J U D G M E N T __________________ BACKGROUND 1.This is the trial of the consolidated proceedings commenced by the plaintiff (“Maryo”) against all the defendants (“D1”, “D2” and “D3”) for conspiracy to defraud Maryo, against D3 for knowing receipt of Maryo’s property, and against D1 and D2 for breach of fiduciary duties. 2.The disputes between the parties have a long and chequered history. I would first set out the background facts which are not in dispute or indisputable. 3.All these disputes stemmed from the death of Dr Tsang Kwong Lik (“Dr. Tsang”), who was a medical doctor. Dr Tsang passed away on 12 December 2001 as a result of a heart attack, intestate. Dr. Tsang’s natural father is Mr Tsang Kei Hung (“Tsang Senior”, who predeceased Dr Tsang), and Dr Tsang’s natural mother is Madam Leung Lai Fong (“Madam Leung”). Tsang Senior and Madam Leung divorced on 27 June 1958. Dr Tsang’s stepmother is Madam Ho Sin Ying (“Madam Ho”). After the divorce, Madam Leung married Mr Chan Man Yeung (“Chan Senior”). Madam Chan Yui Ling (“CYL”) is the daughter of Chan Senior and Madam Leung and is Dr Tsang’s half-sister. D1 and D2 are the daughter and the son of Tsang Senior and Madam Ho respectively, and they are Dr Tsang’s half-sister and half-brother. 4.Dr Tsang has no issue and his wife predeceased him. By the operation of s.4 (7) of the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance (“IEO”), the surviving mother would be the sole beneficiary of his estate (“the Estate”). After the death of Dr Tsang, Madam Ho and Madam Leung had a contentious probate litigation (“the probate litigation”). The central issue in the probate litigation is who is the “mother” prescribed in the IEO. The dispute was finally resolved by the Court of Final Appeal on 24 July 2009[1] (“the CFA Judgment”). The CFA held that the meaning of the word “mother” in s.4 (7) of the IEO should be the natural mother of the intestate and the natural mother only. 5.Before the CFA Judgment, Madam Leung passed away. Madam Leung had by will left everything in her estate to CYL. Since the Estate is an asset in Madam Leung’s estate, CYL is the sole beneficiary of the Estate. Letters of Administration of the Estate were granted to CYL on 21 July 2010. 6.Maryo is a company limited incorporated in Hong Kong on 14 October 1998. Dr Tsang held 998 shares in the company, and D1 has 2 shares. 988 shares previously registered under Dr Tsang’s name are now being held by the Estate. During the lifetime of Dr Tsang, before 8 December 2001, Dr Tsang and D1 were the only directors of Maryo. On 8 December 2001, just a few days before Dr Tsang passed way, he appointed D2 as a director of Maryo, and D1 as the secretary of Maryo. Dr Tsang passed away on 12 December 2001. 7.Maryo’s financial year is from 1 July of a calendar year to 30 June of the next calendar year. 8.On 7 November 2002, D1, as director of Maryo, informed the Inland Revenue Department (“IRD”) in writing that HK$6,725,700 were owed by Maryo to Dr Tsang at the time of the death of Dr Tsang (“the Notice to IRD”). 9.In the financial statement signed by D1 and D2 for the financial year ended on 30 June 2003, D1 and D2 reported that after the disposal of Maryo’s last real property in that financial year, Maryo had a cash deposit of HK$13,781,457. 10.For the financial years from 2003—2004 up to 2010—2011, D1 and D2 reported in the financial statements that Maryo was dormant or having no business in these years. 11.On 21 January 2010, Madam Ho commenced HCA 90/2010 against the Estate for reliefs under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance (“the IPFDO Action”). Madam Ho failed in the Court of First Instance but succeeded in the Court of Appeal. On 16 August 2013, the Court of Appeal made an award in favour of Madam Ho[2]. 12.In August 2010, CYL requested Maryo (then controlled by D1 and D2) to transfer the shares registered under Dr Tsang’s name to the Estate. Maryo did not accede to the request. 13.On 14 September 2010, Bright Jade International Limited (“BJ”) was purchased by D3. D3 was the sole shareholder and director of BJ. 14.On 5 October 2010, D1 and D2 on behalf of Maryo, and D3 on behalf odf BJ, signed a joint venture agreement (“the JV Agreement”)[3], the contents of which are as follows:
15.On the date of the JV Agreement, D1 and D2 on behalf of Maryo issued a cheque of HK$10,000,000 (“the HK$10m”) to BJ. The cheque was paid upon presentation on the same date. 16.On 6 October 2010, Madam Ho commenced HCA 1501/2010 against the Estate (“the 1st Trust Action”), claiming that all the assets in the Estate, including Dr Tsang’s shareholding in Maryo, belonged to Madam Ho beneficially on trust. 17.On 6 May 2011, BJ repaid the HK$10m to Maryo by cheque. 18.On 6 May 2011, D1 and D2 on behalf of Maryo issued a cheque of HK$1,000,000 (“the HK$1m”) to D1, which was paid upon presentation on 9 May 2011. 19.On 22 July 2011, D1 and D2 on behalf of Maryo signed a sale and purchase agreement (“the SPA”) concerning the sale and purchase of 200 pieces of jade articles (“the 200 Jade Articles”) with D3 personally (“the transaction”). D1, D2 and D3 also signed a “Cash Memo” concerning the sale and purchase[4]. The contents of the SPA are as follows:
20.On the same date, D3 opened a new bank account with Wing Lung Bank (“the WLB Account”) and deposited HK$10,000,000 into this account, which was made up by a cheque of HK$9,000,000 issued by D1 and D2 on behalf of Maryo and another cheque of HK$1,000,000. 21.On 6 October 2011, D3 applied for de-registration of BJ. 22.On 3 January 2012, D1 made an affirmation in HCMP 2318/2011 on behalf of Maryo, as one of its then-directors, to resist CYL’s application for an order to compel Maryo to transfer the shares registered under Dr Tsang’s name to CYL in her capacity as the administratrix of the Estate. The ground of the opposition is that the transfer is not in the interest of Maryo and both D1 and D2 refused the transfer requested by CYL. On 6 January 2012, the court allowed CYL’s application and made an order compelling Maryo to transfer the requested shares to CYL. 23.On 13 February 2012, D1 and D2 on behalf of Maryo issued a cheque of HK$130,000 (“the HK$130k”) to D3, which was paid upon presentation on the same date into D3’s WLB Account. 24.On 24 February 2012, BJ was deregistered. 25.On 5 March 2012, 988 shares in Maryo registered under Dr Tsang’s name were transferred to CYL. 26.On 30 March 2012, CYL as the administratrix of the Estate and the holder of the 988 shares, wrote to D1 and D2 (who were the then-directors of Maryo), requisitioning for convening of an EGM to pass a resolution to appoint 3 persons as directors of Maryo, namely, CYL herself, Mr Yeung Kwok Wai (“YKW”) and Madam Yeung Hoi Fu Heather (“YHFH”). CYL also demanded for copies of all minutes of general meetings from 2000 and a copy of the latest balance sheet of Maryo and a copy of the directors’ report and auditors’ report. 27.On 26 April 2012, D1 and D2 reported in the financial statements of Maryo that as at 30 June 2011, there was an unsecured interest-free loan, repayable on demand, due from D1 to Maryo in the amount of HK$1,000,000. 28.On 26 April 2012, the amount left in Maryo’s bank account was only HK$15,358.05. 29.On 15 May 2012, CYL wrote to D1 and D2 and asked them to explain the purposes of 24 identified cheques, including the payments of HK$10,000,000, HK$1,000,000, HK$9,000,000 and HK$130,000 forming the subject matters of HCA 2297/2012. 30.On 31 July 2012, D1, D2 and D3 were arrested by police. Under caution, D3 claimed that he had not done any business with Maryo. Police found the 200 Jade Articles in D1’s home. Those jade articles were placed in a blue nylon bag in the living room on the floor, next to a pile of waste paper and newspapers. Police also found a photo album (“the Album”) used in the probate litigation between Madam Ho and Madam Leung in D3’s home. 31.On 28 August 2012, CYL, YKW, and YHFH became directors of Maryo. 32.In November 2012, Maryo demanded D1 and D2 to explain the payment of HK$9,000,000 and HK$130,000, and demanded D3 to explain his receipt of the said sum. Maryo also demanded D1 to repay the loan of HK$1,000,000 due from D1 to Maryo. 33.On 18 January 2013, D1 and D2 were removed from directorship of Maryo. 34.On 11 July 2013, default judgment was entered against D3 in HCA 2297/2012 (“the default judgment”). On 13 April 2015, D3’s application for setting aside the default judgment was dismissed by the Court of First Instance. Pursuant to the default judgment, D3 has paid HK$7,820,010.70 (“the HK$7.82m”) to Maryo. On 11 January 2016, D3’s appeal was allowed by the Court of Appeal and the default judgment was set aside (“the CA Judgment”). I note that all the pleadings and the evidence in this trial are prepared after the CA Judgment. With respect, the comments in the CA Judgment on the pleadings and on the factual matters must be regarded as being overtaken by subsequent events, and I have to make my findings based upon the pleadings and the evidence now before me. 35.D1, D2 and D3 were tried in DCCC 73/2015[5] (“the Criminal Trial”). On 15 January 2016, the District Court pronounced the verdict (“the DC Judgment”) and found that D1 and D3 were guilty of the following (“the convictions”):
D2 was acquitted after trial. Both D1 and D3 were sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and 8 months. By the time of this trial, they have served their sentence. 36.D3 lodged an appeal against the convictions. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 17 January 2018[6]. D3 sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. On 19 December 2018, the Registrar of the Court of Final Appeal required D3 to show cause by written submissions by 16 January 2019 why the application should not be dismissed by the Appeal Committee. D3 filed written submissions on 16 January 2019. The outcome of his leave application is not yet known. 37.Madam Ho obtained an award in the IPFDO Action, and the Estate has paid the awarded sum to Madam Ho. She also commenced the 1st Trust Action against the Estate, but discontinued that action in January 2012 with an undertaking that she would not commence another action based on the same cause of action. On 27 August 2012, Madam Ho commenced another action, HCA 1531/2012 (“the 2nd Trust Action”), claiming that Maryo held assets on trust for her. The 2nd Trust Action was struck out by both the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal on the ground that the commencement of this new action is an abuse of the process of the court[7]. That being the case, there is no basis in saying that any asset owned by Maryo is being held on trust for Madam Ho. 38.Over the years, D1 and D2 have caused Maryo to pay them directors’ remuneration, details of which are as follows:
THE PARTRIES’ RESPECTIVE CASES 39.Most of the time in these proceedings is spent on the matters relating to the claim of conspiracy to defraud made by Maryo. Maryo claims that the transaction is a bogus transaction and is a scheme devised by D1, D2 and D3 to deceive Maryo. Maryo says that there is a conspiracy among D1, D2 and D3 to defraud Maryo, causing Maryo to pay HK$10,130,000 to D3. It is Maryo’s case that the market value of the 200 Jade Articles was far below HK$12,000,000 at the time of the transaction. Maryo claims that the position prior to the transaction should be restored. D1 and D3 claims that the transaction is a genuine transaction. D3 counterclaims that there should be an order requiring Maryo to repay the HK$7.82m paid by him to Maryo under the default judgment. D2 claims that he has no participation in the transaction. 40.Maryo also claims that D1 should repay the loan of HK$1m due to Maryo. D1 says that the loan has been used to pay part of purchase price in the transaction to D3. 41.Maryo further claims that the directors’ remuneration paid to D1 and D2 are unauthorized payments and D1 and D2 should return the same to Maryo. 42.D1 mounts a counterclaim against Maryo, ie D1 claims that Maryo owes her a shareholder loan of HK$4,722,391 and should repay the same to her. 43.I would first analyse the evidence and make findings on the aforesaid claims. THE RELEVANT LEGAL PRINCIPLES 44.The issues in dispute in these proceedings are fact-sensitive. To a great extent, the answers to these issues depend upon my assessment of the evidence given by the factual witnesses. In respect of evaluating factual evidence, a set of frequently-quoted guidelines is the one given by DHCJ Eugene Fung SC in Hui Cheung Fai v Daiwa Development Ltd[8], in which the learned judge said:
45.As to the effect of lies told by a factual witness, the reminder given by Sir John Dyson in MA (Somalia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department[9] is instructive:
46.In respect of expert evidence, the evidence would only be admissible if the witness giving the evidence really possesses the requisite expertise[10]. Further, experts are merely providing assistance to the court and their evidence is not binding upon the court. The court can and should make its own judgment by considering all the materials available. See Grand Wayfair Investment Company Limited v Chan Yung Kan[11]. 47.Insofar as D1 and D3 are concerned, Maryo is relying upon, inter alia, the convictions in support of its claims against these 2 defendants. Maryo has pleaded s.62 of the Evidence Ordinance (“EO”) in its consolidated statement of claim, which is as follows:
48.A relevant conviction arrived in a criminal court after a full hearing is not only admissible evidence in the related civil proceedings, but is also probative evidence of some weight. It has been said that most serious consideration and heaviest weight should be given to the fact of a conviction. Discharging the burden of proof casted by s.62 of the EO on the defendant is an uphill task[12]. THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE 49.I would first set out my overview of the evidence given by each of the factual witnesses in this case. Thereafter, I would analyse the evidence concerning the claim of conspiracy to defraud made by Maryo, which is the most important issue in these proceedings. CYL 50.CYL was appointed as a director of Maryo on 28 August 2012. Prior to this, she had no involvement in Maryo’s affairs. As the material events in these proceedings occurred prior to her appointment as a director of Maryo, she does not have personal knowledge of those events. Her evidence is merely summarizing the facts and information shown in various documents. While I do not doubt the truthfulness of her evidence, her evidence does not shed much light on the disputes between the parties. D1 51.In my view, D1 is an untruthful and unreliable witness. She lied on various important issues in these proceedings. I have no hesitation in rejecting her evidence. 52.D1 is 65 years old. She received education up to primary 4. She cannot understand English. From 1985 onwards, she did not have any full-time occupation besides helping her father selling jades. From 1996, her mother, Madam Ho, retired from the jade business in order to look after the father, who later passed away. According to D1, Madam Ho had a habit of staying over at different children’s homes at different times, spending time with them for days at a time. 53.D1 was actively involved in the litigations between Madam Ho and CYL’s camp from 2004 to 2012. She helped her mother in the preparation of those litigations, taking her mother to see lawyers and participating in those meetings. D1 had signed witness statements in support of both her mother’s position in the probate litigation, the IFPDO Action, and the 1st Trust Action. D1 also helped writing an “open letter” (“the Open Letter”) to the press during Madam Ho’s trial in the IFPDO Action in June 2012, explaining Madam Ho’s motive for taking out the action and her desire to get back from CYL the Estate. 54.D1 admitted that she and D2 were unwilling to transfer Dr Tsang’s shareholding in Maryo to CYL’s camp because, to her mind, Dr Tsang’s shareholding should belong to her and Madam Ho jointly instead. She also admitted that Madam Ho was unwilling to see those shares vested in CYL’s side. D1 also claimed that, to her mind, Maryo did not actually owe Dr Tsang any money, and in fact Maryo owed money to Madam Ho and her. D1 even claimed that the entire Estate belonged to her. She admitted that she had anger and was of the view that the matter was unfair after the CFA Judgment in 2009, for nothing in the Estate would go to her side of the family after that judgment. Soon after the handing down of the CFA Judgment, D1 had already been helping her mother to prepare for the next round of litigation against CYL with a view to getting the Estate back. Shortly before the commencement of the 1st Trust Action, i.e. shortly before 6 October 2010, D1 already knew that the writ was about to be issued to CYL. That was when the $10m was paid to BJ, D3’s wholly-owned company. All these have to be borne in mind in assessing D1’s credibility. 55.In respect of the JV Agreement and the payment of the HK$10m from Maryo to BJ, D1 has told a pack of lies. D1 said that prior to the signing of the JV Agreement, she had never signed any contract. The JV Agreement was prepared by lawyers upon her verbal instructions, and the draft had been reviewed by a counsel. However, she claimed that the JV Agreement in fact did not reflect her instructions and did not record what had been agreed between her and D3. According to D1, the agreed deal did not involve any loan from Maryo to BJ. The true agreement between her was that D3 agreed to inject his collection of the 200 Jade Articles into BJ, BJ would then place the 200 Jade Articles in Maryo’s hands for sale, and Maryo agreed to provide HK$10m to BJ as security money for taking the 200 Jade Articles in possession. If Maryo made any profits in selling the said jade articles, Maryo would get 60% of the profits and BJ would have the remaining 40%. If Maryo could not find any buyer to purchase the jade articles, Maryo had the right to return the 200 Jade Articles to BJ and get back the HK$10m. 56.D1’s evidence cannot be the truth. 57.Firstly, the agreed deal as claimed by D1 is completely different from the joint venture set out in the JA Agreement. It is inherently improbable that a written contract drafted by professional lawyers upon client’s instructions and reviewed by counsel would not reflect the true agreed deal but show another entirely different deal. It is equally inherently improbable that a person would sign a written agreement prepared by her lawyers when she can see that the contents of the agreement are completely different from the instructions given by her to her lawyers. 58.Secondly, according to D1, Maryo provided security money to BJ and was prepared to share profits with BJ because D3 had “injected” the 200 Jade Articles to BJ. However, D1 has never said how the injection occurred. If there is any truth in the deal as claimed by D1 in her oral evidence, D1 certainly would have had taken some steps to ensure that the ownership of the 200 Jade Articles had been transferred from D3 to BJ. The identity of the true owner of the 200 Jade Articles is an important question. If D3 remains to be the owner of the 200 Jade Articles, there would be no reason for Maryo to give any security money to BJ or to share any profits from the sale of the jade articles with BJ. 59.Thirdly, before procuring Maryo to enter into the JV Agreement and to pay HK$10m to BJ, D1 had already known that CYL was the sole beneficiary of the Estate as a result of the CFA Judgment. Nevertheless, D1 did not consult CYL in respect of the JV Agreement and the HK$10m payment. When asked why she did not do so, D1 said that she just wanted to help Maryo to invest and there was no need to ask other persons. It was put to D1 that (a) she and D2 had in mind that they did not want CYL to get hold of the money in Maryo; and (b) they wanted to move the money out of CYL’s reach when writing the $10m cheque. D1 denied all these. D1 claimed that she wanted Maryo to make profits, no matter the money would belong to whom. D1 said that Maryo had waited for 10 years and had lost many investment opportunities. 60.D1’s explanation is contrived and cannot be believed. As set out in the above, after losing the probate litigation in the CFA, D1 had been actively assisting her mother in other litigations to try to get back the money in the Estate. There can be no doubt that D1 has hatreds against CYL. In these circumstances, to say that D1 has the genuine intention to cause Maryo to make profits to benefit CYL is unbelievable. 61.Further, D1 did not say what investment opportunities Maryo had lost in the 10 years before 2010. While there are continuous litigations concerning the Estate after the death of Dr Tsang in December 2001, there has never been anything preventing Maryo from doing business in all the years. D1 did not cause Maryo to do any business and left Maryo to stay dormant for many years after the death of Dr Tsang, and only caused Maryo to enter into the JV Agreement and pay the HK$10m to BJ after Madam Ho losing the probate litigation in the CFA in 2009. The payment of the HK$10m was made while Madam Ho was claiming against the Estate in the IFPDO Action and one day before Madam Ho started the 1st Trust Action. In respect of all these, the only plausible explanation is that D1’s evidence on the JV Agreement and the HK$10m payment is not true, and the JV Agreement is a scam with the purpose of dissipating the assets of Maryo. 62.I note that BJ repaid the HK$10m to Maryo on 6 May 2011. According to D1, D3 was not in good health at that time and was unable to do what he had agreed to do under his agreement with D1. Hence, D1 and D3 agreed to cancel the joint venture, and BJ returned the HK$10m to Maryo. In my view, this explanation is unconvincing. In D1’s own words, the actual joint venture agreement is that Maryo would sell the 200 Jade Articles deposited by BJ, and Maryo and BJ would divide the profits generated from the sale. That being the case, even if D3 was not in good health, that would not affect the joint venture, for the sale of the jade articles would be done by D1. 63.I am in respectful agreement with the observation made by the Court of Appeal in CACC 16/2016[13], in which Yeung VP (giving the judgment of the Court) said:
64.In her oral evidence given at the trial, D1 claimed that Dr Tsang, during his lifetime, had told her that after his death, D1 could withdraw as much as she liked from Maryo’s account. This allegation is relied upon as a defence to claim of unauthorised director’s remuneration made by Maryo. However, this allegation has not been pleaded in D1’s defence and has not been mentioned in D1’s witness statement. In my judgment, this allegation is a story made up by D1 in the witness box. This allegation is absurd and not supported by any document at all. 65.Fourthly, as explained below, D1’s evidence concerning her defence to the claim of conspiracy to defraud is also not the truth. 66.All in all, in my judgment, D1 is an untruthful and unreliable witness. Her evidence must be rejected. D2 67.D2 is also not a truthful witness. He tried to distance himself from the essential events in this case. However, there is in fact clear evidence showing that he has knowingly participated in these matters. 68.D2 is the son of Tsang Senior and Madam Ho. He is the younger brother of D1. He is 52 years old. He completed university education in Taiwan and obtained a bachelor degree in biomedical engineering. He had some work experience in Taiwan before returning to Hong Kong in 1997. After coming back to Hong Kong, he has worked in many different capacities and industries, including insurance & wealth management, asset management and real estate. He also has the experience of using a company limited as a vehicle to do business. In 2010 and 2011, D2 was (a) a consultant of AMG Wealth Management Ltd; and (b) the regional manager and project director of Sino Promise, Asia’s then largest agent for Kodak. He said that he was made a director of Maryo by Dr Tsang shortly before the demise of Dr Tsang. Dr Tsang asked him to keep an eye on his sister, ie D1. 69.D2 claimed that he was oblivious of Maryo’s financial conditions (ie contemporaneous bank balance) throughout his directorship, and was solely tasked to issue and countersign cheques for payments of remuneration, utilities, government rates and the like (without any knowledge of how much Maryo had in its bank account), to make a record of cheque payments and to go to the accountants to simply sign off accounts without careful reading of the documents. However, while he was giving evidence, in response to the question asked by the court, D2 said that if he was requested to countersign a cheque of a big sum, he would ask D1 to tell him the purpose of the payment. If D1 was unable to provide him a satisfactory explanation, he would refuse to sign. 70.In my view, D2’s evidence is untrue on various material aspects. 71.Firstly, D2 claimed that he had no knowledge of Maryo’s sale of its final real property in 2002 and had no participation in the sale. He was only informed by D1 after the completion of the sale that the property. That property was sold for HK$13.98m, and the assignment was actually executed by D1 and D2 on behalf of Maryo in December 2002. After being shown a copy of the said assignment, D2 retracted his earlier evidence. D2 had to do so, for he had no other alternative when the assignment bearing his signature was placed before him. 72.Secondly, although D2 has confirmed the truthfulness and correctness of the contents of his witness statement, he tried to retract his testimony in the middle of the cross-examination and said that parts of his witness statement were not his evidence, including paragraphs 15 and 16 of that witness statement, which are as follows:
73.D2 was asked why evidence not from him was in his witness statements. D2 explained that the witness statement was prepared by the solicitors acting for him at that time, who were also D1’s solicitors. D2 said that his witness statement and D1’s witness statements had similar contents, and probably this was due to the fact that the 2 witness statements were prepared by the same firm of solicitors. In my view, this is not a satisfactory explanation for the appearance of paragraphs 15 and 16 in his witness statement:
74.In my judgment, the allegation that paragraphs 15 and 16 of D2’s witness statement is not from him is untrue. This is a matter invented by D2 while he was being cross-examined, and he made up this to try to distance himself from the transaction. 75.Thirdly, D2 claims that he has no knowledge of the cheque of HK$130k at all. When he signed the cheque, that cheque was a blank cheque. D1 has never told him eventually what was written on that cheque and the cheque was used for what purpose. As revealed in paragraph 21 of D2’s defence and paragraph 16 of D2’s witness statement, D2’s evidence is untrue. Whether everything had been written on the cheque when D2 put his signature on the same is not the crucial point. The crucial point is that D2 knows the purpose of that cheque, and has agreed to the cheque being used for that purpose. 76.Fourthly, while D2 was under cross-examination, D2 on his own motion for the first time mentioned that the JV Agreement, the SPA and the Cash Memo were signed by him only “after the event” ( 補簽 ). D2 claimed that the JV Agreement was signed by him several weeks after the signing of the $10m cheque, whereas for the other 2 documents, he was simply unable to describe how much time “after the event” that he eventually signed them. His evidence cannot be true.
77.Fifthly, for the reasons set out below, D2’s evidence concerning his defence to the claim of conspiracy to defraud is untrue. 78.I am of the view that D2 is not a truthful and unreliable witness. I refuse to accept his evidence. D3 79.D3 is now 65 years old. He fully retired since 2012 or 2013 from a career as a labourer in goods-handling. Amongst other places, he used to move goods in the Aberdeen Wholesale Fish Market. During 2010 and 2011, he was semi-retired at that time, earning between $10,000-20,000 per month by that stage. He professed to have some experience in the cargo business too. 80.D3 claimed that he was a jade lover and collector. He was introduced to jade collection by his late grandmother, who was a serious jade collector. Some of his collections were purchased in Mainland China and some were purchased in Hong Kong. D3 said that before his grandmother passed away in or about 1982, his grandmother left her entire jade collection to him. 81.D3 said that he came to know Dr Tsang in or about the mid-90s. He was a patient of Dr Tsang at that time, and later they became friends. D3 would visit Dr Tsang at his clinic in Hung Hom from time to time. Dr Tsang told D3 that D1 was his sister. After Dr Tsang passed away in December 2001, D3 ceased to visit the clinic. 82.D3 was BJ’s sole shareholder and director during its short existence. He had acquired BJ on 14 September 2010, and it was his 1st time starting a company for himself. The acquisition was at a time:
These have to be borne in mind in assessing the overall credibility of D3. 83.Under cross-examination, D3 admitted that he had a permanent residential address in Shek Tong Tsui since 1983 or 1984. However, he put in someone else’s home address as his residential address in the company’s documents filed by BJ at the Companies Registry. According to D3, he chose to use that person’s address because he was considering to hire her as an assistant in the business in future. D3 said that he had planned to hire that person to help with accounting and secretarial work. However, that person in fact had never been hired by D3 or BJ. D3 said that person’s home had space for a desk whilst his home was too small and occupied by the stuffs left behind by his deceased father and grandmother. In my view, D3 has not provided any convincing explanation as to why he did not put his own residential address in the company’s documents filed at the Companies Registry. After all, his own address is his real residential address. Further, it is inherently improbable that the other person would allow D3 to put that other person’s address as D3’s residential address in the company’s documents without reasonable cause. I am of the view that the excuses offered by D3 cannot be reasonable cause. That D3 has deliberately put another person’s address in the company’s documents as his own residential address without any plausible explanation should be taken into account in assessing the credibility of D3’s case. 84.D3’s evidence is unconvincing and incredible on various aspects. His evidence cannot be true. 85.Firstly, while D3 was giving evidence-in-chief, he made a correction to his witness statement and said that paragraph 27 of his statement should be moved to immediately after paragraph 23 of that statement.
86.Secondly, as to the purpose of D1 showing him the Album, both D1 and D3 said that it was for enabling D3 to know the face of CYL, the new shareholder of Maryo, so that D3 would be able to chase CYL for payment. This cannot be true. There is no recent photo of CYL in the Album. Further and more importantly, just showing the face of CYL to D3 and without telling D3 how CYL could be contacted, it would not be possible for D3 to find CYL and to chase CYL for payment. 87.Thirdly, the timing of D3’s purported inspection and valuation of the 200 Jade Articles in his oral evidence is very different from that described in by him in his 3rd Affirmation made on 20 January 2015. In that affirmation, he claimed that the inspection and valuation took place no later than 5 May 2010 (ie the receipt of the HK$10m by BJ). In his oral evidence given in the trial, the inspection and valuation were done only a few weeks before 22 July 2011 (ie the receipt of the HK$10m by D3 himself). He was unable to give any plausible explanation for this discrepancy when being challenged on this during cross-examination. 88.In paragraph 16 of his 3rd Affirmation, D3 claimed that after he learned that Maryo had alleged the 200 Jade Articles were of a total value much lower than HK$12m, he confronted D1 for her reason for the offer of HK$12m. Upon his strong request, D1 revealed to him that the offering price was actually based on Madam Ho’s valuation. Madam Ho opined that the value of the 200 Jade Articles would be about HK$16m. However, in his oral evidence given in this trial, the valuation by Madam Ho was said to have taken place a few weeks before 22 July 2011, and he knew this because he overheard the discussion between D1 and Madam Ho when they were talking about the value of the 200 Jade Articles after seeing the same. Since Maryo’s allegation of gross undervalue had not been made until the commencement of these proceedings in late 2012, the timing of D1’s revelation to him about Madam Ho’s valuation would be, according to D3’s 3rd Affirmation, in late 2012 or so. In other words, D3’s oral evidence on the timing of this valuation is totally out of sync by more than 1½ years approximately. It was put to him that he was not telling the truth concerning the valuation of the 200 Jade Articles, D3 denied. In my view, D3 has not told the truth. 89.Fourthly, under cross-examination, D3 was asked to explain the following, and no meaningful explanation had been offered.
All these are important questions pertinent to the credibility of D3’s case. The absence of any meaningful explanation to all these shows that D3’s case cannot be true. 90.Fifthly, for the reasons set out below, D3’s evidence concerning his defence to the claim of conspiracy to defraud is untrue. 91.In my judgment, D3 is also an untruthful and unreliable witness. I reject his evidence. CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD 92.I now turn to the evidence given by the defendants in respect of the claim of conspiracy to defraud made by Maryo. 93.The whole saga began on 5 October 2010, when D1 and D2 caused Maryo to pay the HK$10m to BJ, purportedly under the JV Agreement. The payment was made after Madam Ho losing the probate litigation in the CFA and Madam Ho’s commencement of the IPFDO claim, and one day before Madam Ho’s commencement of the 1st Trust Action. During that time in late September and early October 2010, D1 was closely involved in Madam Ho’s litigations against CYL’s camp. By then, D1 already knew that CYL had been requesting, since August 2010, for the transfer of Dr Tsang’s shares in Maryo to the Estate. D1 was unwilling to see CYL to get hold of those shares. 94.D1 claimed that it did not occur to her that she should consult CYL, Estate’s “manager”, about the payment of the HK$10m. D1 alleged that she just wanted to invest on behalf of Maryo, and she had no need to consult anyone else. It was put to D1 during cross-examination that when she and D2 were issuing the HK$10m cheque, they were contemplating that they did not want CYL to get hold of that money and that they intended to remove the money from Maryo. D1 denied and claimed that she wanted Maryo to make profits, and it was not important that the money would enter into whose pocket. D1 claimed that Maryo had lost many investment opportunities after waiting for 10 years. For the reasons set out in paragraphs 60 and 61 above, D1 was clearly lying on all these. 95.D1 and D3 rely heavily upon the return of the HK$10m to Maryo by BJ on 6 May 2011 to claim that they are innocent. However, a closer analysis of the evidence reveals that their claim is unconvincing.
96.The significance of the above analysis is that D3 could not have been telling the truth when he testified that the HK$10m have never left BJ’s account. He was not forthcoming as to what had happened to the money between 5 October 2010 and 3 May 2011. 97.In respect of the JV Agreement, D1 alleged that the document was drafted by lawyers upon her instructions and reviewed by counsel. D3 claimed that the document was signed after some minor amendments. However, the JV Agreement does not contemplate any sale by Maryo of the goods provided by BJ. The company registration number of BJ as shown in the JV Agreement is entirely wrong. Further, D1 has never requested D3 to tender any proof showing that BJ is the true owner of the 200 Jade Articles. There is also no evidence showing that after entering into the JV Agreement, D1 had caused Maryo to make any attempt to try to sell any of the 200 Jade Articles. All these show that that the alleged joint venture is not a genuine scheme. 98.For the reasons set out in paragraphs 62 and 63 above, the mere return of the HK$10m from BJ to Maryo on 6 May 2011 is not sufficient evidence showing that there is no trick in the so-called joint venture. 99.The so-called joint venture, including the HK$10m payment to BJ, could not be implemented without the connivance and participation of D2. D2 signed both the JV Agreement and the HK$10m cheque. I do not accept that he was merely doing what D1 telling him to do and had no participation in all these. 100.Just a few days after the return of the HK$10m to Maryo, D1 and D2 drew the HK$1m cheque to D1. 101.The evidence from D2 as to the purpose of this payment was very different from the evidence from D1. D1 claimed that at that time, she planned on buying jade for Maryo, as the price of jade was hiking up. However, she could not find any suitable jade. She kept the HK$1m with a view to buy the 200 Jade Articles from D3 at a later time. D2 claimed that D1 was in a big hurry to obtain that payment of HK$1m so that she could place a deposit for jade. He did query her why the cheque should not be drawn payable directly to the seller, but she did not give any answer. She just rushed him into writing the cheque, saying she was in a hurry. Since I am of the view that neither D1 nor D2 is a truthful witness, I do not accept these explanations. The only matter which is clear from the documents is that, with D2’s connivance and assistance (ie signing the HK$1m cheque), D1 has taken HK$1m from Maryo. 102.In respect of the transaction, I am of the view that this is not a genuine transaction but is a scam with the purpose of depriving Maryo’s assets.
103.The presence of the Album (having a lot of family photos inside) in D3’s home shows that D1 and D3 were not merely business partners, but D1 would in fact discuss her family matters with D3. There is no other plausible explanation for the presence of the Album in D3’s home. 104.Another piece of evidence casting doubt of the genuineness of the transaction in July 2011 is the opening of D3’s WLB Account in To Kwa Wan on 22 July 2011, the date on which the SPA was signed and HK$10m (HK$9m from a cheque issued by D1 and D2 on behalf of Maryo and HK$1m from another cheque) were paid to D3. At that time, according to D3, for the purpose of looking after his ex-wife who was not in good health, he rented a unit in Sham Shui po and was living therein. D3 in fact had an existing Wing Lung Bank account. There were Wing Hang Bank branches in Sham Shui po and nearby. He had poor eyesight and walking difficulties, and had a history of stumbling. D3 admitted that it was D1 who took him to the To Kwa Wan branch. As admitted by D1, that had been the branch of account of Maryo since at least 2001, of which she had control jointly with D2. D3 said D1’s reason to have his new account there was probably she did not want the money to leave. He confirmed that she was with him at the branch when D3 was opening an account there. After that, they both left the bank at the same time and parted company there. 105.When D1 was giving her evidence, she flatly denied any recollection of D3’s opening of a new account in the To Kwa Wan branch on 22 July 2011. D1 was trying to distance herself from having anything to do with D3’s new account. 106.If the transaction is just a normal sale and purchase, there is no reason why D3 could not use his existing bank account to receive the sale proceeds but had to travel to To Kwa Wan to open a new bank account and deposit the money into that account. Further, it is unbelievable that D3 would do this out of his own motion without any suggestion or instruction from D1. However, D1 lied and said that she had nothing to do with the opening of this new account. All these show that there must be something improper in the transaction. 107.There is no documentary evidence showing that D3 has ever chased Maryo to pay the balance of the purchase price and the interest stipulated in the SPA, the total of which being HK$2.04m, which is not a small sum. It is clear that even up to the time of the trial, D3 has no counterclaim for this sum[14]. D3 claimed in his witness statement that as he was not in urgent need for the outstanding balance, he did not push hard for the outstanding instalment payments. However, under cross-examination, D3 emphasized that he frequently chased D1 for the outstanding balance and how frustrating it was when D1’s mobile phone did not let him leave any messages. D1 also claimed that she received such demands from D3. All these are incapable of being believed. Has D3 ever been serious in getting the outstanding balance from Maryo, he would certainly have had made a claim for this against Maryo, bearing in mind that he has been legally represented at all times in these proceedings. D3’s lack of any action in claiming the balance in all these years, despite having proper legal representation, shows that the transaction in fact is not a genuine transaction. 108.After obtaining the HK$10m, D3 continuously withdrew substantial cash from his bank account until he being arrested on 31 July 2012:
109.In cross-examination, D3 for the 1st time said that he had a debt-ridden, gambling son and he had had to settle the son’s debts in cash during the months of April to June 2012 in which he withdrew a total of more than HK$1.3m cash. He claimed there had been an incident of his son’s public housing flat having been splashed with red paint for which the police had records. His excuse for having to withdraw such sums of cash in so many stages over that period was that his son had been less than candid with him about all the liabilities. He claimed he had kept quiet on this issue until now for fear that his son might be affected. 110.In my view, this explanation offered by D3 is unconvincing:
111.D3 also mentioned that he had also spent money on buying health products for himself (without any level of details) and giving money (without specifics as to amounts or timing) to his elderly father. D3 also claimed that he had spent HK$60,000-HK$70,000 on buying jade. All these are not in his witness statement but was raised by D3 during cross-examination, without any particular and without any document in support. I do not regard these allegations as truthful. 112.Clearly, D3 was dissipating the HK$10m received by him in the transaction. If the money is a sum properly obtained by him, he would not dissipate the same quickly within a short time frame. 113.On 31 July 2012, when D1 was arrested in her home, police found the 200 Jade Articles contained in 2 plastic boxes in a blue nylon bag in the living room on the floor, next to a pile of waste paper and newspapers. Keeping the jade articles in this manner is an indicator showing that these articles cannot be very valuable assets. 114.D1 claimed that the jade articles had to be further processed before putting them in the safe deposit box opened by Maryo. I do not accept this explanation.
115.In my view, taking all the evidence into account, the 200 Jade Articles cannot be assets with a value of about HK$12m. This conclusion is not affected by the mere existence of the safe deposit box. 116.I now turn to the evidence given by D2. It is indisputable that while D1 and D2 were directors of Maryo, all the cheques issued by Maryo must be signed by D1 and D2. D2 in fact had the authority and power in controlling the finance of Maryo. In D2’s own evidence, Dr Tsang had urged him to become a director of Maryo so that D2 could help keep an eye on D1 and help to manage Maryo. D2 said that at first he had hesitation in becoming a director but eventually he agreed to become a director a few days before Dr Tsang’s demise. Under cross-examination, D2 agreed that Dr Tsang wanted D2 to be a director of Maryo because Dr Tsang wanted to have a check-and-balance regime in Maryo, and neither D1 nor D2 could unilaterally make decisions on behalf of Maryo. 117.In this case, the HK$10m cheque to BJ, the HK$1m cheque to D1, the HK$9m cheque to D3, and the HK$130k cheque to D3 were all signed by D1 and D2. D2 also signed the JV Agreement, the SPA and the Cash Memo. D2 claimed that he was a director in name only, and he signed these cheques and documents only because D1 asked him to do so. In my view, D2’s explanation is unconvincing. 118.D2 has a bachelor degree in biochemical engineering. He was a businessman as well as an investment consultant. At the time in 2010-2011, he was a consultant in AMG Wealth Management Ltd. He was also the Project Director of Sino Promise, Asia’s largest agency for Kodak products. According to him, Dr Tsang wanted him to be a director of Maryo because Dr Tsang wanted to have check and balance in Maryo. In his defence, D2 averred that he had acted in the best interest of Maryo at all material times, and he had exercised reasonable care and skill in managing Maryo at all material times. Under cross-examination, he claimed that he would refuse to sign a cheque if D1 was unable to provide a satisfactory explanation in respect of that cheque. All these have to be borne in mind in assessing D2’s evidence. 119.I am of the view that D2’s explanation is unconvincing for the following reasons:
120.In my judgment, D2 signed the aforesaid cheques and documents not because of merely acceding to D1’s requests, but because of knowingly participating in the scheme designed by D1 and D3 in defrauding Maryo. Given his knowledge, his background and his directorship in Maryo, it would not be possible that he did not realize the fraud being pursued by D1 and D3 against Maryo. D2 must also be a participant in the fraud, signing documents and cheques to enable D1 and D3 to implement their fraudulent scheme. THE EXPERT EVIDENCE 121.Save and except D2, all parties have adduced expert evidence. The names of the experts having given evidence in the trial are as follows:
122.The question requiring experts’ assistance is the market value of the 200 Jade Articles at the time of the SPA, ie in July 2011. 123.With respect, I am of the view that Sham does not have the necessary expertise on the question above. Sham is not a gemmologist. He has no passion or interest in jade. He is a loss adjuster and an associate of RICS, an institute of surveyors. His company used to hold an estate agency licence for upwards of 10 years. He obtained a degree in finance recently through distance learning. He claims that he has expertise in valuation in some areas, but he also makes it clear he does not have expertise in valuation of jade articles. In the absence of the necessary expertise on the question to be determined by the court, Sham’s opinion cannot be regarded as admissible expert opinion. 124.Chung is a qualified gemologist. I accept that he is qualified to give an opinion on the question to be determined by the court. Chung opines that the value of the 200 Jade Articles should be from HK$1,168,400 to HK$1,394,000 on or about 3 December 2014. The estimated value is the estimated retail price of the 200 Jade Articles. If the 200 Jade Articles are sold in one go in the market, Chung is of the opinion that the wholesale value would be about 20% lower than the retail value. Chung also said that “price of jade is very subjective to individual, it may fluctuate 10 to 20 times higher than its assessed price subject to the purchaser and it is depending on the market trend and supply and demand at the time.”[18] 125.I accept Chung’s opinion that the wholesale value of the 200 Jade Articles would be substantially lower than the retail value, as it is in accordance with common and commercial sense. Chung is unable to produce the work sheets showing the examination conducted by him on the 200 Jade Articles, as he has lost those work sheets. That being the case, I cannot attach much weight to his valuation, for the detailed reasons in support of the valuation are unknown. In respect of Chung’s assertion that the price of jade may fluctuate 10 to 20 times subject to the purchaser, it is always true that a person having some special reasons may well be willing to pay a price which is much higher than the market price to buy certain goods or a certain real property. However, the question to be determined in this case is the market price of the 200 Jade Articles in July 2011, not the price to be paid by a purchaser having some special interest in the jade articles. Chung also claims that the price of jade is depending on the market trend and supply and demand at the time. This is always true in respect of any goods. These factors should have already been taken into account in doing the valuation. 126.Chan is a well-qualified and experienced gemologist. I accept that she is qualified to give an expert opinion on the question to be determined by the court. She has provided detailed worksheets in support of her valuation. She is of the view that the market value of the 200 Jade Articles on a retail basis in May 2014 would be from HK$345,550 to HK$450,000. Wholesale price would be 20% to 30% lower than the retail price. The price in June 2011 would be 10% to 20% less, and this is because of the increased cost in craftsmanship since mid-2011. 127.D1’s counsel and D3’s counsel argue that Chan’s opinion should not carry much weight for the following reasons:
128.With respect, I do not accept these submissions.
129.In my view, Chan’s opinion is based upon detailed examination and is well reasoned. I accept her opinion and attach full weight to the same. 130.D1’s counsel submits that it would not be possible to give a value to a jade article, for a person who wants to have that jade article would pay whatever price he is able to pay to get that jade. With respect, this submission is misconceived. As said before, the question to be determined by the court is the market value of the 200 Jade Articles in July 2011, not the price to be paid by a purchaser having some special interest in the jade articles. 131.Based upon the expert evidence accepted by the court, the wholesale market value of the 200 Jade Articles in or about July 2011 was from about (HK$345,000 x 75% x 85%) to about (HK$450,000 x 75% x 85%), ie from about HK$219,938 to HK$286,875. MY FINDINGS Conspiracy to defraud 132.By reason of the matters set out in the above, I find that D1, D2 and D3 did conspire today to defraud Maryo by dishonestly causing Maryo to enter into the transaction, and thereby causing Maryo to pay HK$10,130,000 to D3 to buy assets worth only about HK$219,938 to HK$286,875. As a result, the transaction must be set aside and the SPA must be declared null and void ab initio. 133.I reach this conclusion without considering the convictions. In my view, even without the convictions, the evidence before me clearly shows the conspiracy as claimed by Maryo. For the sake of completeness, I would say that the convictions provided further support to my conclusion in relation to D1 and D3. There is simply no credible evidence displacing the deeming provision in s.62(2)(a) of the EO. 134.Maryo is asking for return of the money previously paid to D3. Since D3 has repaid HK$7,820,010.70 to Maryo under the default judgment, the outstanding balance is (HK$10,130,000 – HK$7,820,010.70) = HK$2,309,989.30. Among this sum, HK$130,000 was paid by Maryo to D3 on 13 February 2012, hence pre-judgment interest on this sum should be from 13 February 2012 until the date of this judgment, at the rate of 1% above HSBC best lending rate. Apart from the HK$130,000, the money was paid by Maryo to D3 on 22 July 2012, hence pre-judgment interest on (HK$2,309,989.30 – HK$130,000) = HK$2,179,989.30 should be from 22 July 2012 until the date of this judgment, at the rate of 1% above HSBC best lending rate until the date of this judgment. There should be post-judgment interest at the judgment rate on these 2 sums until full payment of the same. D1, D2 and D3 are jointly and severally liable for these sums and interest. Upon full payment of these 2 sums and the interest, Maryo shall return the 200 Jade Articles to D3. 135.For the sake of completeness, since I have ruled in favour of Maryo on the claim of conspiracy to defraud, D1 and D2 are also liable to Maryo for breach of fiduciary duties and D3 is liable to Maryo for knowing receipt in respect of the sums set out in the above. Loan of HK$1m to D1 136.Maryo’s own pleaded case is that the HK$1m to D1 has been included in the HK$10,130,000 mentioned above[27]. That being the case, since I have made an order concerning the repayment of the HK$10,130,000 claimed by Maryo, there would be no need for me to make any order on the claim concerning the loan of HK$1m. D3’s Counterclaim 137.D3 counterclaims for the return of the HK$7,820,010.70 paid by him to Maryo under the default judgment. Since I have concluded that D3 is one of the fraudster defrauding Maryo, D3’s counterclaim must be dismissed. Directors’ Remuneration 138.Both D1 and D2 rely upon the non-adoption of Article 78 of Table A in the old Companies Ordinance[28] in Maryo’s articles of association to claim that they are entitled to have the directors’ remuneration even in the absence of any resolution in the general meeting of Maryo approving the same. In my view, this argument is misconceived. 139.A director owes fiduciary duties to the company. It is trite that a person in a fiduciary position is not allowed to put himself in a position where his interest and his duty conflict. Thus, a director is not entitled to remuneration for service rendered as a director, except as provided by the articles of association[29]. 140.The non-adoption of Table A, Article 78 is neither here nor there. The crucial point is whether the directors’ remuneration has even been approved by the shareholders of Maryo. D1’s counsel, relying upon Re Duomatic Ltd.[30], submitted that it would not be necessary to have a resolution in the general meeting authorizing the directors’ remuneration, and it would be sufficient if all the shareholders with the right to attend and vote at a general meeting had assented to the matter. I have no quarrel with this principle. The point is whether there is credible and reliable evidence showing this assent. In my view, the answer is clearly in the negative. 141.The only evidence on the issue is from D1. D1 claimed that during Dr Tsang’s lifetime, Dr Tsang had told her that she might withdraw whatever amount she wished from Maryo. I have already held that D1 is an untruthful witness and rejected her evidence. That being the case, there is no evidence showing that the shareholders of Maryo has ever approved the directors’ remuneration paid to D1 and D2. 142.Further, after the death of Dr Tsang, Maryo was dormant and had no business for many years. There is no reason why D1 and D2 should receive substantial directors’ remunerations in all these years. 143.In my judgment, D1 and D2 shall return the directors’ remunerations received by them to Maryo with interest. D1’s counterclaim 144.D1 counterclaims that Maryo owes her a shareholder’s loan of HK$4,722,931, and shall return the same to her. This counterclaim cannot even get off the ground, for (a) there is no evidence in D1’s witness statement concerning this counterclaim and no documentary evidence in support of the same; and (b) D1 has been held by this court as an untruthful and unreliable witness. 145.The only evidence from D1 concerning her counterclaim is her evidence under cross-examination. She claimed that she knew the company had owed her some money and everywhere she looked, she could only find that sum as owing by the company, so she decided to treat that sum as an amount owed to her. This is wholly arbitrary and unsound. 146.At the time of Dr Tsang’s death, Maryo owed Dr Tsang HK$6,725,700. This is recorded in the Notice to IRD signed by D1 on behalf of Maryo dated 7 October 2002. There is no document showing that Maryo has ever owed any sum to D1. 147.In Maryo’s audited financial statements, the following sums were recorded due by the company to director/shareholder:
148.As at 30 June 2001 (Dr Tsang was still alive at that time), Maryo owed HK$6,938,704 to a director. In the light of D1’s admission made in the Notice to IRD, that HK$6,938,704 and the sums in the subsequent financial years as set out in the paragraph above should be a loan owed by Maryo to Dr Tsang. In the auditors’ reports in the final few years, the auditors issued their qualified opinion for the reason that there was no direct confirmation for the amounts due to shareholder of $4,722,391. Obviously, D1 was unwilling to confirm that the sum was a loan due by Maryo to Dr Tsang. At the same time, the auditors had not been shown of any evidence proving that the amount was due to D1. 149.Since D1 was in control of Maryo in the financial years mentioned above, D1 might have done something to reduce the amount owed by Maryo to Dr Tsang. No matter how, it is clear that there is no credible and reliable evidence in support of D1’s counterclaim. 150.D1’s counterclaim must be dismissed. DISPOSITION 151.For the reasons above, I give judgment to Maryo and dismiss D1’s counterclaim and D3’s counterclaim. I make the following order:
152.Costs should follow the event. I am of the view that D1, D2 and D3 should be jointly and severally liable for costs in relation to the matters concerning the conspiracy to defraud (including D3’s counterclaim). These matters have taken up 85% of the time of these proceedings. Costs taken up by the HK$1m Loan to D1 is minimal and there would not be a costs order in respect of this claim. D1 is liable for costs in relation to the director’s remuneration received by her. This issue has taken up 5% of the time of these proceedings. Similarly, D2 is liable for costs in relation to the director’s remuneration received by him, and the time taken up by this issue is also 5%. D1 should be liable for costs in relation to the counterclaim raised by her. The time in these proceedings taken up by D1’s counterclaim is 5%. I make a costs order nisi that costs of these proceedings (including all costs reserved) be paid by D1, D2 and D3 to Maryo in accordance with the aforesaid. 153.Lastly, it remains for me to thank counsel for the assistance rendered to the court.
Mr Paul HM Leung, instructed by S.K. Wong & Co., for the Plaintiff. Mr Ernest CC Ng, instructed by Damien Shea & Co., for the 1st Defendant 2nd defendant appeared in person. Mr Kenwick Yam, instructed by Collin Ng & Co., for the 3rd Defendant. [1] [2009] 12 HKCFAR 581. [2] CACV 173/2012. [3] In his oral evidence given in the trial, D2 claimed that D1 gave the JV Agreement to him at a time later than 5 October 2010. At that time, the JV Agreement had already been signed by D1 and D3. D1 asked D2 to put his signature on the JV Agreement. D2 acceded to the request. [4] In his oral evidence given in the trial, D2 claimed that D1 gave the SPA and the Cash Memo to him at a time later than 22 July 2011.When D2 saw the SPA and the Cash Memo, these documents had already been signed by D1 and D3. D1 asked D2 to put his signature on the SPA and the Cash Memo, and D2 did so. [5] D1 here is the 2nd defendant in the criminal trial, and D2 here is the 1st defendant in that criminal case. D3 here is also the 3rd defendant in that trial. [6] CACC 16/2016, [2018] HKCA 35. [7] Ho Sin Ying, v Chan Yui Ling and Maryo Development Ltd (CACV 221/2013, 25 July 2014). [8] HCA 1734/2009, 8 April 2014 [9] [2011] 2 All ER 65. [10] Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2019, Volume 2, J1/58/2. [11] CACV 238/2013, 26 September 2014, [37]-[44]. [12] China Everbright – IHD Pacific Ltd v Ch’ng Poh & Others [1999] 2 HKLRD 555, at 560C-G. [14] D3’s counterclaim is just limited to the return of the HK$7.82m paid by him to Maryo under the default judgment. [15] D2 claimed that he was only asked by D1 to put his signature on the JV Agreement a few weeks after the issue of the HK$10m cheque. [16] D2’s witness statement, para.10 [17] The date of the Cash Memo is 22 July 2011. According to D1, the SPA and the Cash Memo was signed at the same time. According to D2, D1 showed him these 2 documents sometime after 22 July 2011 and asked him to sign the documents. When he saw the documents, the documents had already been signed by D1 and D3. [18] Chung’s report, [15] [19] At that time, the 200 Jade Articles were seized by the police. [20] Trial Bundle 8, p.1682 [21] Trial Bundle 8, p.1685. [22] Trial Bundle 8, p.1690. [23] Trial Bundle 8, pp.1711-1712 and 1721-1722. Chan’s assistant was of the opinion that the cut grade of the jade articles in question should be “Good”. Chan disagreed and changed the grading to “Fair”. [24] Trial Bundle 8, p.1682. [25] For example, Trial Bundle 8, pp.1685. [26] Trial Bundle 8, pp.1689-1690. [27] Maryo’s consolidated statement of claim, [35(2)]. [28] Table A, Article 78.
[29] Snell’s Equity (33rd Edition), [7-023]. [30] [1969] 2 Ch 365. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 2297/2012