Ho Yin Yuk v. Lam Ka Lok

HCA012957/1999

HCA 12957/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 12957 OF 1999

____________

____________

AND

HCA 12958/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 12958 OF 1999

____________

____________

AND

HCA 16373/1999

& HCA 17908/1999

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NOS. 16373 & 17908 OF 1999

____________

____________

Coram: Hon Yeung J in Court

Dates of Hearing: 12 - 16, 19 November 2001

Date of Judgment: 19 November 2001

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.There are a total of 4 actions between Ho Yin Yuk (Ho) and Lam Ka Lok (Lam) and Ho Chor Man, Bevan (Bevan), namely HCA 12957/99, HCA 12958/99, HCA 16373/99 and HCA 17908/99.

2.Ho is now 77 years old and is widowed. Her husband passed away in the early 1970s' and left substantial assets. Ho subsequently realized the assets and at the material times had large sums of cash deposited in the bank. She has children but does not appear to be closed to them.

3.Lam and Bevan are husband and wife. Bevan worked at a Chi Man Beauty Parlour (Chi Man) and Lam was a director of an estate agent company. In or around mid 1995, Ho became acquainted with Bevan and her colleagues including Siu Wai Bing, Elaine (Elaine) and Mok Yin Ling (Mok) when she went to Chi Man for facial treatments. Elaine was the boss of Chi Man and Bevan had worked there for 7-8 years.

4.They became good friends and would have meals and play mahjong together.

5.It is Ho's case that between 1995 and 1998, Lam and Bevan had cheated her. The cheating took various forms, including:

(1) persuading Ho to purchase expensive, but unworthy beauty machines and cosmetic products at much inflated prices without making full deliveries;

(2) inducing Ho to mortgage her properties and pocketing the proceeds;

(3) obtaining blank cheques from Ho and then withdrawing large sums of money from her accounts;

(4) misleading Ho into signing a Will so that two of her properties would be inherited by Lam after her death; and

(5) persuading Ho to transfer her property to Lam without making payment to her.

6.Over a period of about 2 years, most of Ho's assets were taken over by Lam and Bevan. Of the $30 million odd she had in her account, only a few thousand dollars are left. Two flats (the Happy Valley flats) including the one that she lives in were mortgaged with the proceeds going to Lam and another flat at the Karen Court was transferred to a BVI company under his control. She did not receive any payment from the mortgage or the transfer.

7.In HCA 12957/99, Ho claims against Lam for a declaration that the property at Flat C on 41st Floor of Block 9, Royal Ascot, No. 1 Tsun King Road Shatin, New Territories (the Royal Ascot flat) registered in Lam's name is held by him on trust for her.

8.In HCA 12958/99, Ho claims against Lam and Bevan for a declaration that the property at Flat 5F on 5th Floor of Block 5, Kent Court, Nos. 131-139 Boundary Street, Kowloon (the Kent Court flat) originally registered in names of Lam and Bevan is also held by them on trust for her.

9.Ho also seeks the return of over $18 million from Lam and Bevan on the basis of money had and received.

10.Between August 1995 and June 1998, a total of about $33 million had been drawn from Ho's account with BNP. About $15 million was drawn by cash cheques, $12,986,666.66 ($13 million) was drawn by cheques payable to Lam and $5,087,751.72 ($5 million) was drawn by cheques payable to Bevan.

11.In June 1997, Ho mortgaged the Happy Valley flats with Dao Heng Bank to secure over-draft facility for $4 million in favour of Lam and Lam had fully utilized such facility. In August 1997, Ho executed a Will naming Lam as her sole executor and bequeathing the Happy Valley flats to him. In November 1997, Ho also transferred a flat at Karen Court (the Karen Court flat) to a BVI company controlled by Lam for a purported consideration of $4 million when in fact no payment was made.

12.It is Ho's case that Bevan obtained her chequebooks and asked her to sign the cheques in blank. Bevan suggested to her that various kinds of cosmetics and physiotherapy machines had to be purchased and Ho needed to pay for them. In particular it was suggested that sums of money needed to be paid to a European lady who supplied those cosmetics and machines.

13.Ho suggests that the prices quoted by Bevan were inflated and Lam and Bevan pocketed the money. She also alleges that some of the goods ordered and paid for by her were never delivered. Ho only subsequently found out that apart from the cash payments, $18 million had also been deposited into the accounts of Lam and Bevan.

14.As Ho is unable to point out where the cash cheque payments ended and it was possible that others were involved in defrauding her, she is not claiming against Lam and Bevan in respect of the cash cheques for about $15 million. She is confining her claim against Lam for $13 million and against Bevan for $5 million.

15.It is Ho's case that the money obtained from her was used to acquire the Royal Ascot flat and the Kent Court flat. In the circumstances, Ho claims to be the beneficial owner and have an equitable lien over such properties.

16.Apart from the cheques that had been paid, it is also agreed that Bevan still has 7-signed cheques (the 7 cheques) belonging to Ho in her possession:

Particulars

17.Lam and Bevan do not deny that they had obtained large sums of money from Ho. Indeed they admit that Ho had paid Bevan a total of about $18 million part of which was deposited into Lam's account and the rest deposited into Bevan's account.

18.However it is suggested that Ho was very generous to Bevan and every now and then would give her blank cheques and tell her to fill in the amount in hundreds of thousand dollars. Whenever she felt like it, Ho would ask Bevan to deposit one of those cheques. Lam and Bevan admit that there was no reason for Ho to give so much money to them.

19.Simply Ho was fond of Bevan and was generous to her. The suggestion is that the blank cheques for hundreds of thousand dollars were all cashed or deposited with the knowledge and consent of Ho and as such they were gifts.

20.In return the suggestion is that Bevan had been very kind to Ho by looking after her and accompanying her almost every day. She would give Ho beauty treatments and accompany her for meals, shopping, going to church, overseas tours, medical treatment and mah-jong games.

21.Apart from resisting Ho's claims against them, Lam counterclaims against Ho. It is suggested that in 1997, Ho agreed with Lam to jointly invest in property speculation in the ratio of 2 to 1. Pursuant to such agreement, Lam acquired two properties, namely Flat E, 31/F., Block 2, East Point City, Tseung Kwan O, N.T. (Property 1) in the name of Lam himself and Flat F, 28/F., Block 7, Royal Ascot, Shatin, N.T. (Property 2) in the name of Honour Schedule International Limited.

22.Lam suggests that Ho's shares of the costs of Property 1 and Property 2 were $2,268,941.75 and $7,582,006.66 respectively. Ho only paid him $2,180,000.00 and $4,000,000.00 leaving the balance of the respective sums of $88,941.75 and $3,582,006.66.

23.It is also Lam's case that on or about 4th May 1998, he lent the sum of $880,000.00 to Ho which sum was never repaid.

24.In HCA16373/99, Lam claims against Ho for the return of the said sums of $88,941.75 and $3,582,006.66. In HCA 17908/99, Lam also claims against Ho for the return of the said sum of $880,000.00.

25.Ho denies any joint venture agreement with Lam in property speculation. Instead it is her case that Lam had induced her to mortgage the Happy Valley flats to raise the sum of $4,000,000.00 from Dao Heng Bank Ltd which sum was withdrawn by Lam for his own use.

26.Ho also denies Lam's claim for $880,000.00. She suggests that in or about May 1998, Lam and/or Bevan owed $880,000.00 to Elaine for the purchase of cosmetic goods. Elaine would not accept any cheque from Lam or Bevan. Lam therefore wrote out a cheque for $880,000.00 to give to her and requested her to obtain 2 cashier orders for the respective sums of $600,000.00 and $280,000.00 from BNP to give to a company under Elaine's control, Franchise (Hong Kong) Ltd.

27.Ho gives detailed evidence on how she came to know Bevan when she patronized Chi Man in 1995. They became closed and Bevan would go to her house to do "facial" for her. Later Bevan suggested that Ho should buy a facial machine for $1.6 million, a massage bed for $600,000.00, a hand massage machine for $480,000.00 and other smaller items of machines for facial treatments.

28.When Ho asked why the prices were so high, it was suggested that the massage bed had the effect of curing cancer. Bevan also suggested that those machines were specifically reserved for Ho by a European lady who had to be paid. Thereafter Bevan would ask Ho to sign cheques in blank saying that the European lady needed to be paid.

29.Ho says when she signed the cheques, she did not fill in the payees' names nor the amount and she had no idea how much was paid. Bevan simply gave her the excuse that money needed to be paid to the European lady. It was not until she found out that her bank account had been drained of all the money, she enquired from the bank and found that many of the cheques were paid to Lam and Bevan. As Ho had no more money to pay the European lady, Bevan asked her to mortgage the Happy Valley flats to raise $4 million and then to transfer the Karen Court flat to Lam for a purported consideration of $4 million.

30.According to Ho, she did not receive any money from the mortgage and the transfer. Bevan simply said the money would be paid to the European lady.

31.Ho also found out from Elaine that the cosmetic machineries had been sold to her at a much-inflated price. For example, the $1.6 million facial machine only cost $20,000.00 odd and the $600,000.00 message bed only cost $10,000.00. Elaine and Bevan shared the money with the major part went to Bevan.

32.Ho denies any joint venture agreement with Lam and Bevan for property speculation. She does agree however that Bevan had once told her that a flat had been brought and a share of $2 million had been reserved for her. She had no intention of buying flat with others and did not agree to Bevan's suggestion. However she says as Bevan expected her to pay the money and if she refused to pay, Bevan would be in trouble and therefore she would just give her $2 million as gift.

33.Ho denies that the Karen Court flat was given to Bevan and Lam's son as a gift. She insists that the Happly Valley flats were mortgaged and the Karen Court flat was transferred because Bevan told her that money was needed to pay the European lady for goods supplied to her.

34.Ho was questioned about two documents dated around 24 April 1998 (the two documents) written by Bevan on which it was recorded that Ho was prepared to pay $20 million to Bevan and that she was satisfied with what Bevan had done to her. The two documents also state that Bevan would provided her with treatments and would accompany her for another 5 years and she needed not make any further payment to Bevan. Ho is unable to tell the court the reason of such documents. She says however when she signed on them, there were not so much writings on them.

35.Ho also informs the court that Bevan had once taken 3 diamonds rings worth over $300,000.00 from her. After she reported the matter to the police, they were returned to her.

36.Bevan says she started working for Elaine in her beauty parlour as an apprentice after her Form V graduation and had been working for her until she had her first baby. She resumed working for her in 1995 when her son was 1 year old and she came to know Ho. She says Ho was fond of her and insisted that she should serve her and they became very closed.

37.Bevan says she accompanied Ho everyday from 11 am until after mid-night six days a week. They would have meals together and play mah-jong in addition to the beauty treatments she performed for Ho.

38.Ho was a generous lady and would spend her money lavishly. She would pay $280,000.00 for carpets, over $1 million on a bracelet and several hundred thousand dollars on a piece to jade.

39.In particular it is suggested by Bevan that Ho treated her as if she was her daughter and would pay her millions of dollars whenever she was happy. She said Ho would be happy when she brought her small items of cosmetics. She said Ho had given her a total of 100 cheques. Ho would ask her to fill in the amount before signing them. Bevan would keep those signed cheques until such time when Ho told her to put them into bank accounts. Sometimes, Ho would issue a cheque for a larger sum in exchange for a few cheques for smaller sums, as she did not want the bank to trouble her too often.

40.Bevan says sometimes she put down Lam's name as the payee because she did not have time to go to the bank. She agrees that a total of $13 million had been deposited into Lam's account and $5 million into hers.

41.Bevan insists that in late1996 or early 1997, there was a discussion with Ho and it was agreed that they would invest in property in the shares of 1/3 and 2/3. As a result Property 1 and Property 2 were purchased. Bevan suggests that as Ho did not have enough cash then, it was arranged for her to mortgage the Happy Valley flats for $4 million to acquire Property 2 in or about June 1997.

42.Bevan also says in or about September 1997, Ho decided to give the Karen Court flat to her son as a birthday gift. The Karen Court flat was worth $3 to $4 million and arrangement was made to have it transferred to Lam's name. She said Lam had complained of the trouble for the flat to be transferred to his name as he was very busy. The Karen Court flat was subsequently sold to pay for the Kent Court flat.

43.Bevan insists that when she prepared the two documents for Ho to sign, she did not know that Ho had reported the matter to the police. She says Ho was then unhappy as Elaine and others had deserted her and she was worried that no one would keep her company or do treatments for her when she had no money. The documents were prepared to make her happy and to make her feel safe as well as protecting each other's interest.

44.Bevan also admits for the 2 years period, apart from giving her $18 million, Ho also gave Elaine $15 million to $16 million for machineries and cosmetic products which only worth $1 million odd. She says she has no idea why Ho also gave so much money to Elaine. She said Elaine was also a goddaughter to Ho.

45.Despite such payment, Bevan insists that Elaine took away some machinery from Ho in early 1998 and would only return them upon the payment of the $880,000.00 and as a result Lam had to draw on his over-draft account to lend $880,000.00 to Ho to pay Elaine.

46.Bevan also says at the time when she was serving Ho, she was still an employee of Elaine and Elaine would pay her $40,000.00 to $50,000.00 a month for her service. She had no idea how much Elaine would charge Ho as they too were very closed and she was not clear about their relationship and the nature of the agreement that they might have.

47.Before serving Ho, Bevan was only making about $20,000.00 a month and she did not speculate in shares or property and it was Ho who introduced her to stock trading.

48.Bevan says she does not remember if she had ever taken Ho to a European lady for skin product but she did not use the European lady as an excuse to obtain the sums of money from Ho.

49.Bevan also says in late 1997 to 1998, Ho did not have any more cash and was therefore unable to pay her and Lam the money she owed them in connection with the joint venture investment. She says both she and Lam had to chase Ho for repayment of the debt without success. When it was pointed out to her that in late 1997, very substantial sums were drawn from Ho's account, she then said she did not really chase Ho for repayment. She just asked her. Nevertheless she insists that even when Ho was running out of cash and was unable to repay debts, she was still giving her large sums of money as gift. The 7 cheques amounting to $3.5 million were given to her in February or March 1998 as gift.

50.When pressed as to why Ho would still be giving her large sums of money as gift but not repaying debts due to her, Bevan suggests that Ho drew a distinction between the cash in her account and the money she intended to invest in property. The suggestion was that Ho was then trying to dispose of her properties in Canada and the money derived there from would be used to repay the debts owed to Lam and Bevan.

51.In response to questions by the court, Bevan for the first time suggests that the small items of cosmetic gifts she gave Ho in fact cost her a total of $1 million. This aspect and many other aspects of her evidence have not been suggested to Ho at all.

52.Lam admits that he found the way Ho showered Bevan with large sums of money astonishing. Nevertheless as Bevan told him that they were gifts from godmother, he just put down his name on the cheques as payee before depositing them.

53.Lam insists that Ho had agreed to jointly invest in property and Property 1 and Property 2 were purchased as joint investment.

54.Lam also admits that in June 1997, he and Bevan took Ho to a Dao Heng Bank branch to mortgage the Happy Valley flats to raise $4 million. He says as Ho was thinking of investing in a property in Royal Ascot, it would be convenient for her to raise some money first so that payment could be made when a suitable flat was found.

55.He also admits that the $4 million was transferred to an over-draft account of his. He suggests that he had earlier paid a large deposit for Property 2 and the $4 million was treated as Ho's partial repayment of her share. The property investments result in substantial loss.

56.Lam also says the Karen Court flat was a gift to his son by Ho. He said a notional price of $4 million was put in the transfer documents. He also says he used a BVI company to hold the Karen Court flat for fear that the Inland Revenue Department would suspect the source of his income which enabled him to acquire so many properties. The Karen Court flat was sold in 1999 when he was in financial difficulty.

57.Lam agrees that all the dealings he had with Ho, including the mortgage of the Happy Valley flats with Dao Heng Bank, the transfer of the Karen Court flat, the execution of the Will by Ho in his favour were handled by his long term lawyer, Messrs Gary Tam and Co.

58.Apparently in order to secure his position, Lam asked Ho to execute a Will naming him as the sole executor as well as the sole beneficiary of the Happy Valley flats that had been mortgaged to Dao Heng Bank. His explanation is that when the over-draft account was transferred to his sole name, he needed further protection. The two flats valued at $7 to $8 million would afford him further protection.

59.Lam admits that he had not rendered any account in respect of Property 1 and Property 2 to Ho. He says if Ho had not sued him, he would not have sued her either. He also admits that there is no document indicating that Ho has any interest in Property 1 or Property 2 and every thing depends on "trust" between them.

60.Towards the end of his re-examination, Lam suggests Ho's share in Property 1 still exceeds $850,000.00 and Property 2 was disposed of in 1999 with a loss of over $10 million.

61.The only independent evidence is that of the bank manager of BNP, Mr. Lee.

62.It is Mr. Lee's evidence that cash cheques for more than $200,000.00 and account payee cheques for more than $500,000.00 need confirmation from the drawers. He said that is the practice of the bank, He himself follows the practice and he expects his colleagues to do the same.

63.Mr. Lee also says Ho has been a client for over 10 years and she has current account, saving account and deposit account with BNP. Apart from Mr. Lee, 3 to 4 of his colleagues also handle Ho's accounts. The credit balance in those accounts used to be $10 odd million but have now been reduced to just over $5,000.00.

64.Mr. Lee also confirms that in the 2 years period in 1996 and 1997 over $33 million had been withdrawn from Ho's current account. He also confirms that Ho dealt in stock and shares as well as foreign currencies and was able to make some profits there from.

65.I have considered the evidence of the witnesses and counsel's submission carefully. Let me state at the out set that the suggestion by Lam and Bevan that Ho gave them over $18 million as gift is improbable and totally unconvincing. The $18 million together with the $15 million were all the cash that Ho had and it was completely withdrawn, leaving only a few thousand dollars in her account.

66.It is equally unconvincing that Ho would simply agree to give a flat valued at $4 million as a birthday gift to a boy when her bank account was almost empty. There was never any explanation as to why in the transfer documents, the Karen Court flat was supposed to have been sold at the consideration of $4 million.

67.Even on Lam and Bevan's own case, there is no suggested reason for Ho to execute a Will with Lam as the sole executor and beneficiary of the 2 Happy Valley flats.

68.In my view, the truth of the matter is that having exhausted the money in Ho's account, Lam and Bevan laid their hands on her other properties.

69.Bevan's evidence is pathetic. It is simply unbelievable that in 1997 and 1998 when Ho was running out of cash that she would still be giving large sums of money to Bevan as gift. She even suggests that when Ho was unable to repay debts due to her and Lam, such gift continued. The suggestion that Ho was trying to distinguish the cash in her account which she gave to Bevan as gift and the money she could realize from selling her properties in Canada was a blatant lie in an attempt to explain what was clearly inexplicable.

70.On her own evidence, Elaine had obtained $15 to $16 million from Ho for machines and cosmetic products worth just over $1million. In such circumstances, it was unlikely that Elaine would have taken the machines from Ho and demanded the payment of $880,000.00 before returning them. It is even more improbable that Bevan and Lam would have raised the $880,000.00 by over-draft to enable Ho to repay to Elaine. They could have said to Elaine, "You have got more than you are entitled to."

71.It is likely that Bevan had not fully paid Elaine the money she promised to pay her. It is also likely that Bevan had also pocketed most of the $15 to $16 million drawn from Ho's account by cash cheques.

72.I am satisfied that Lam and Bevan's allegation that Ho had agreed to invest in Property 1 and Property 2 is a sheer concoction on their parts. These two properties were registered in Lam's name and in a company under his control. There is not one single document to show that Ho had any interest in those properties.

73.Property 1 and Property 2 were rented out for a significant period of time. But Lam and Bevan had never rendered any account to Ho. Lam was clearly treating the two properties as his own properties. There was not one single document to show that Ho had been asked for repayment of any alleged debt, yet after Ho commenced the first two actions again them, Lam would make such a claim in a separate action.

74.This is an unusual case by any standard as it is difficult to comprehend how a person would have allowed over $30 million to be taken from her bank account. But having heard and seen Ho in the witness box, everything becomes clear.

75.Ho is clearly a well-sheltered lady. She is forgetful. She does not seem to be too clear about her own affairs and she is not too concern about them either. She is illiterate and has always been well looked after by her husband and after his death by his loyal employees. She is timid and submissive.

76.She has no idea about the value of money and she agreed to pay huge sums for the beauty treatment machines because it was embarrassing to say no. She agreed to mortgage and transfer her properties for the benefit of Lam and Bevan just because she was told that the European lady needed to be paid.

77.There is a Will purportedly executed by Ho bequeathing the two Happy Valley flats valued at $7 to $8 million to Lam. The undisputed evidence shows that Ho was at the material time completely under the control of Bevan and Lam who were able to manipulate her and were able to get away with whatever they wanted to the detriment of Ho.

78.Ho is mistaken about the numbers and nature of her accounts with BNP and she appears to be ignorance of the amount of money she had in her bank accounts at the material times.

79.Despite the deplorable conduct of Lam and Bevan towards her, Ho bears no grudges against them. She gives her evidence in a calm and convincing manner. The lengthy cross-examination not only fails to discredit her, but also demonstrates clearly that she is frank and truthful and can easily be preyed upon by unscrupulous people such as Lam and Bevan. She concedes that she was prepared to give $2 million to Bevan to avoid any trouble to her.

80.I accept Ho's evidence. Her evidence on the $880,000.00 is clearly consistent with the documents which indicate that upon the deposit of a cheque for $880,000.00, 2 cashier orders for the same amount were made out. The cashier orders were issued upon the request of Bevan.

81.Ho's fate was sealed when she met Bevan, not a particularly intelligent woman, but crafty, dominating and aggressive. Bevan is evasive and shifty in her evidence. Her attempt to impress the court by addressing Ho affectionately as her godmother in the course of her evidence is artificial.

82.Bevan was clearly lying when she said Ho continued to lavish her with huge sums as gift when she and Lam were asking her for the repayment of the alleged debts that she was unable to repay due to shortage of cash.

83.After she learnt of Ho's report to the police against her, she prepared the two documents for Ho to sign. The only reason for the documents was because Bevan thought they could protect her from Ho's complaint. They demonstrate on the one hand the crafty character of Bevan and on the other hand the submissive character of Ho. The two documents also contradict her assertion that the $18 million was meant to be gift to her.

84.I reject the evidence that there was any joint investment agreement. Lam was at all material time in the property business and had been investing in property regularly. He had purchased more properties than he could afford. When Lam and Bevan had exhausted Ho's account and when they needed more money in connection with their property speculation, they coerced her to mortgage the Happy Valley flats and transfer the Karen Court flat in order to raise more money for them. The property investments turned out to be disasters and they suffered huge loss. Lam now tries to drag Ho in to counteract her allegations against them.

85.Lam is lying when he says the purpose of mortgaging the Happy Valley flats was to enable Ho to have cash available in case a flat at Royal Ascot was found. In fact he had already signed the Provisional Sale and Purchase Agreement for Property 2 when the mortgage of the Happy Valley flats were arranged in June 1997.

86.In an attempt to further exploit Ho, Lam even arranged for Ho to execute a Will bequeathing the Happy Valley flats to him.

87.I reject any suggestion of an advancement of $880,000.00 to Ho to enable her to pay Elaine.

88.I do not agree Mr. Lee's evidence contradicts that of Ho. Most of the cheques in question do not exceed the amount that required confirmation from Ho. For those that required confirmation, it was not surprising at all that Ho did give her confirmation in the light of the background, particularly the influence that Lam and Bevan were exerting on her at the material times. Ho also says that a payment of $2 million was agreed to. There were the payments for the machines.

89.I am satisfied that the subject matters of the claim by Lam against Ho are all made up. When Lam and Bevan testify in support of those claims, they are lying.

90.On the evidence, I have no hesitation in finding that the $33 million was withdrawn from Ho's account on the false pretence by Bevan that the European lady needed to be paid. The value of the machinery and products supplied to Ho by Elaine worth far less than the $15 million withdrawn by cash cheques. The cheques for $13 million and $5 million were deposited into the respective accounts of Lam and Bevan without informing Ho the extent and true nature of such payments. I reject the suggestion that those payments were gift payments.

91.Lam and Bevan had clearly been unjustifiably enriched by money belonging to Ho. I have no hesitation in finding in favour of Ho in her claims against them and rejecting Lam's claim against her.

92.In fact, I am convinced that Bevan and Lam had unjustifiably obtained more money from Ho than the $13 million and $5 million that Ho is claiming against them. As I have said earlier, it is likely that Bevan had also pocketed a significant part of the $15 million withdrawn from Ho's account by cash cheques. It is also clear that Ho could have claimed damages against Lam and Bevan in respect of the mortgage of the Happy Valley flats and the transfer of the Karen Court flat.

93.But Ho is not making any claim against Lam and Bevan other than the $13 million and $5 million, I shall say no more.

94.It is also right in my view that $2 million should be deducted from Ho's claim against Lam as she has fairly conceded that $2 million could be treated as a gift to them.

95.Mr. Chong on behalf of Ho also concedes that it has not been possible to establish that the money used to acquire the Royal Ascot Property and the Kent Court Property actually came from Ho. He abandons the claims on constructive trust and lien.

96.In the circumstances, in respect of HCA12957/99 and HCA12958/99, there will be judgment in favour of the plaintiff Ho Yin Yuk against the defendants Lam Ka Lok and Ho Chor Man, Bevan for the respective sums of $10,986,666.66 and $5,087,751.72 and interest thereon at the rate of 8% p.a. from January 1, 1997.

97.Quite apart from the findings of the court as indicated above, there is no acceptable evidence at all to support Lam's claims against Ho in HCA16373/99 and HCA 17908/99. Those claims are dismissed.

Representation:

Mr Patrick Chong, instructed by Messrs Peter Mo & Co., for the Plaintiff in HCA12957/1999 & HCA12958/1999 and the Defendant in HCA16373/1999 & HCA17908/1999

Mr Tsang Kam Hung, instructed by Messrs Gary K W Tam & Co., for the Defendants in HCA12957/1999 & HCA12958/1999 and the Plaintiff in HCA16373/1999 & HCA17908/1999