When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Monday 14 March 2011
Court dismisses Tony Chan’s ‘totally dishonest’ appeal
Tony Chan Chun-chuen yesterday lost a second round in his “totally dishonest case” to wrest the fortune of the late Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum from the Chinachem Charitable Foundation.
Court dismisses Tony Chan’s ‘totally dishonest’ appeal
Fung shui master determined to fight on in battle of wills
Joyce Man and Clifford Lo 15 February 2011
Tony Chan Chun-chuen yesterday lost a second round in his “totally dishonest case” to wrest the fortune of the late Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum from the Chinachem Charitable Foundation.
While the judges spoke in decisive tones, Chan signalled his intention to take the case to the Court of Final Appeal.
In a Valentine’s Day verdict, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the fung shui practitioner, who claimed Wang gave him her fortune out of love. The court said it had “no hesitation” in tossing out the case.
“[Chan] has persisted in pursuing a thoroughly dishonest case,” vice-president Anthony Rogers said. “In doing so he has abused the process of the court.”
Chinachem Group executive director Dr Kung Yan-sum, Nina Wang’s younger brother, surrounded by relatives, said he was “very, very happy”.
“There is justice in heaven and on earth,” he said, gesturing towards calligraphy with the same inscription as he spoke at Nina Tower in Tseun Wan. Kung said he hoped the judgment would put an end to the case.
Yet soon after the ruling, Chan made public his intention to appeal.
“Although Mr. Chan Chun-chuen is deeply disappointed by the court’s ruling, he will respect the judgment,” a public relations representative said on his behalf. “He has already decided to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Mr. Chan reiterates that the 2006 will is absolutely authentic.”
Asked whether Chinachem would continue the court battle against Chan, Kung said: “If he does, would I not?”
The Court of First Instance ruled against Chan last February. Chan claims Wang gave him her fortune in a 2006 will, while Chinachem Charitable Foundation claims she left it her wealth in a 2002 will.
The lower court found that Chan’s document was a forgery and police arrested him the next day. He was released on HK$5 million bail.
Wang, once Asia’s richest woman and Chinachem Group chairwoman, died of cancer in April 2007, aged 69.
The judgment said there had been various estimates of the value of Chinachem Group’s companies, with a figure in the region of HK$100 billion being mentioned.
Chan was ordered to pay Chinachem’s legal costs for the appeal. The court rejected an appeal by Chan against an order on costs from the proceedings in the lower court. Even without the appeal costs, Chan faced an estimated HK$340 million bill for both sides’ fees after the earlier proceedings and a claim by the taxman for HK$350 million in profits tax.
The Court of Appeal said the lower court judge had been correct in finding the signatures on the 2006 document were forgeries.
The Inland Revenue Department says Chan owes the profits tax from last year. Chan filed a writ seeking a judicial review challenging the department’s refusal to accept his objection notice to some tax assessments. That review is due to be heard in May.
A spokeswoman for Inland Revenue said it would be inappropriate to comment on the tax-related court cases because they were in legal proceedings.
She said the department would not comment on individual situations, citing a section on secrecy in the Inland Revenue Ordinance.
Chan reported back to police in January and had his bail extended. He is to report again in early April.
A police officer said: “The probate judgment is a civil case and our probe over the alleged forgery is a criminal investigation. They are separate.”
But the officer said police would study the results of the Court of Appeal ruling.
Refusing to reveal whether handwriting, DNA and fingerprint examinations on the 2006 will were completed, the officer said tests would be conducted once any evidence surfaced. “We will seek legal advice from the Department of Justice after our probes are completed,” the officer said.
The appeal was heard before Rogers, along with Mrs Justice Doreen Le Pichon and Madam Justice Susan Kwan Shuk-hing.
1 comment:
Court dismisses Tony Chan’s ‘totally dishonest’ appeal
Fung shui master determined to fight on in battle of wills
Joyce Man and Clifford Lo
15 February 2011
Tony Chan Chun-chuen yesterday lost a second round in his “totally dishonest case” to wrest the fortune of the late Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum from the Chinachem Charitable Foundation.
While the judges spoke in decisive tones, Chan signalled his intention to take the case to the Court of Final Appeal.
In a Valentine’s Day verdict, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by the fung shui practitioner, who claimed Wang gave him her fortune out of love. The court said it had “no hesitation” in tossing out the case.
“[Chan] has persisted in pursuing a thoroughly dishonest case,” vice-president Anthony Rogers said. “In doing so he has abused the process of the court.”
Chinachem Group executive director Dr Kung Yan-sum, Nina Wang’s younger brother, surrounded by relatives, said he was “very, very happy”.
“There is justice in heaven and on earth,” he said, gesturing towards calligraphy with the same inscription as he spoke at Nina Tower in Tseun Wan. Kung said he hoped the judgment would put an end to the case.
Yet soon after the ruling, Chan made public his intention to appeal.
“Although Mr. Chan Chun-chuen is deeply disappointed by the court’s ruling, he will respect the judgment,” a public relations representative said on his behalf. “He has already decided to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Mr. Chan reiterates that the 2006 will is absolutely authentic.”
Asked whether Chinachem would continue the court battle against Chan, Kung said: “If he does, would I not?”
The Court of First Instance ruled against Chan last February. Chan claims Wang gave him her fortune in a 2006 will, while Chinachem Charitable Foundation claims she left it her wealth in a 2002 will.
The lower court found that Chan’s document was a forgery and police arrested him the next day. He was released on HK$5 million bail.
Wang, once Asia’s richest woman and Chinachem Group chairwoman, died of cancer in April 2007, aged 69.
The judgment said there had been various estimates of the value of Chinachem Group’s companies, with a figure in the region of HK$100 billion being mentioned.
Chan was ordered to pay Chinachem’s legal costs for the appeal. The court rejected an appeal by Chan against an order on costs from the proceedings in the lower court. Even without the appeal costs, Chan faced an estimated HK$340 million bill for both sides’ fees after the earlier proceedings and a claim by the taxman for HK$350 million in profits tax.
The Court of Appeal said the lower court judge had been correct in finding the signatures on the 2006 document were forgeries.
The Inland Revenue Department says Chan owes the profits tax from last year. Chan filed a writ seeking a judicial review challenging the department’s refusal to accept his objection notice to some tax assessments. That review is due to be heard in May.
A spokeswoman for Inland Revenue said it would be inappropriate to comment on the tax-related court cases because they were in legal proceedings.
She said the department would not comment on individual situations, citing a section on secrecy in the Inland Revenue Ordinance.
Chan reported back to police in January and had his bail extended. He is to report again in early April.
A police officer said: “The probate judgment is a civil case and our probe over the alleged forgery is a criminal investigation. They are separate.”
But the officer said police would study the results of the Court of Appeal ruling.
Refusing to reveal whether handwriting, DNA and fingerprint examinations on the 2006 will were completed, the officer said tests would be conducted once any evidence surfaced. “We will seek legal advice from the Department of Justice after our probes are completed,” the officer said.
The appeal was heard before Rogers, along with Mrs Justice Doreen Le Pichon and Madam Justice Susan Kwan Shuk-hing.
Post a Comment