When someone shares with you something of value, you have an obligation to share it with others.
Wednesday 3 February 2010
Judge devotes a third of ruling to fake signatures
More than a third of the 300-odd pages of the judgment in the Nina Wang probate battle was devoted to analysing the signatures on the will fung shui master Tony Chan Chun-chuen claimed left him her fortune of at least HK$10 billion.
Judge devotes a third of ruling to fake signatures
More than 100 pages focus on handwriting evidence
Joyce Man 03 February 2010
More than a third of the 300-odd pages of the judgment in the Nina Wang probate battle was devoted to analysing the signatures on the will fung shui master Tony Chan Chun-chuen claimed left him her fortune of at least HK$10 billion.
Chan had claimed that on October 16, 2006, Wang - who was the richest women in Asia when she died in 2007 - had bequeathed her estate to him because they had been lovers.
But Mr. Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon threw out his document yesterday, finding the signatures were skilful fakes, and accepted as genuine a 2002 will that left the estate to Wang’s Chinachem Charitable Foundation.
Lam dedicated more than 100 pages of the judgment to analysing the evidence of handwriting experts on the strokes and patterns of the 2006 document, including the way Wang had allegedly written the letter “g” and the number “44”.
Chan had claimed his will had been witnessed and signed by Wang’s friend, Winfield Wong, and a Chinachem employee, Ng Shung-mo. Lam said the document Wong and Ng had signed that day was in fact something known as a specific bequest will, giving a man surnamed Chan HK$10 million.
He found that Wang’s signature in the alleged 2006 will, and that of one of the witnesses, Winfield Wong, were “highly skilled simulations”.
The judge said Paul Westwood, an Australian handwriting expert Chan called to testify, was unable to explain some significant differences between the handwriting on the 2006 will and the signatories’ real handwriting.
Chan had claimed Wang gave him the 2006 will with a similar, unsigned document. Tests using an electrostatic detection device showed indents invisible to the naked eye on the unsigned document that indicated it had been beneath the 2006 will when it was signed.
But Wong and Ng Shung-mo both said the document they had signed comprised just one page, the judge said. Had there been two copies that were slightly different, Wong would have clarified with Wang which one she wanted to be executed. Since Wong did not do so, he must have seen a one-page document.
Further, the judge noted, Wong had recalled holding up the document while reading it and handing it to Wang. If he had done this the papers would have moved and the indents revealed by the examination would not have been produced.
Examination of the 2006 will showed Wang’s signature had been written across a crease after the crease had been made. But both Wong and Ng’s evidence indicated the document they witnessed being signed had not been creased.
The judge also found it unlikely that Wang would have signed on a crease given there was plenty of space beneath the crease.
Lam said Chan had lied and withheld relevant information about the lead-up to the preparation of the bequest will. He had also lied about three substantial payments he received in 2005 and 2006, and providing fung shui services to Wang.
He said Chan’s witness statement that he had sex with Wang every time they were together, which was every night except Sundays, after they first had sex in April or May 1992, contradicted his testimony in cross-examination that he did not have sex with her regularly until that August.
“Not only do I find [Chan’s] evidence of his intimate relationship with Nina incredible, I also find him tailoring his case to suit his own purposes rather than giving evidence of truth,” the judge said.
Chan changed his testimony to bolster his claim that he was no mere fung shui master to Wang, but a lover. But the judge said Chan had been introduced to Wang as a fung shui master and had received substantial payments for his fung shui services.
The judge said Wang was serious about the will made in 2002, and the evidence showed she intended the foundation to continue with her charitable works.
1 comment:
Judge devotes a third of ruling to fake signatures
More than 100 pages focus on handwriting evidence
Joyce Man
03 February 2010
More than a third of the 300-odd pages of the judgment in the Nina Wang probate battle was devoted to analysing the signatures on the will fung shui master Tony Chan Chun-chuen claimed left him her fortune of at least HK$10 billion.
Chan had claimed that on October 16, 2006, Wang - who was the richest women in Asia when she died in 2007 - had bequeathed her estate to him because they had been lovers.
But Mr. Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon threw out his document yesterday, finding the signatures were skilful fakes, and accepted as genuine a 2002 will that left the estate to Wang’s Chinachem Charitable Foundation.
Lam dedicated more than 100 pages of the judgment to analysing the evidence of handwriting experts on the strokes and patterns of the 2006 document, including the way Wang had allegedly written the letter “g” and the number “44”.
Chan had claimed his will had been witnessed and signed by Wang’s friend, Winfield Wong, and a Chinachem employee, Ng Shung-mo. Lam said the document Wong and Ng had signed that day was in fact something known as a specific bequest will, giving a man surnamed Chan HK$10 million.
He found that Wang’s signature in the alleged 2006 will, and that of one of the witnesses, Winfield Wong, were “highly skilled simulations”.
The judge said Paul Westwood, an Australian handwriting expert Chan called to testify, was unable to explain some significant differences between the handwriting on the 2006 will and the signatories’ real handwriting.
Chan had claimed Wang gave him the 2006 will with a similar, unsigned document. Tests using an electrostatic detection device showed indents invisible to the naked eye on the unsigned document that indicated it had been beneath the 2006 will when it was signed.
But Wong and Ng Shung-mo both said the document they had signed comprised just one page, the judge said. Had there been two copies that were slightly different, Wong would have clarified with Wang which one she wanted to be executed. Since Wong did not do so, he must have seen a one-page document.
Further, the judge noted, Wong had recalled holding up the document while reading it and handing it to Wang. If he had done this the papers would have moved and the indents revealed by the examination would not have been produced.
Examination of the 2006 will showed Wang’s signature had been written across a crease after the crease had been made. But both Wong and Ng’s evidence indicated the document they witnessed being signed had not been creased.
The judge also found it unlikely that Wang would have signed on a crease given there was plenty of space beneath the crease.
Lam said Chan had lied and withheld relevant information about the lead-up to the preparation of the bequest will. He had also lied about three substantial payments he received in 2005 and 2006, and providing fung shui services to Wang.
He said Chan’s witness statement that he had sex with Wang every time they were together, which was every night except Sundays, after they first had sex in April or May 1992, contradicted his testimony in cross-examination that he did not have sex with her regularly until that August.
“Not only do I find [Chan’s] evidence of his intimate relationship with Nina incredible, I also find him tailoring his case to suit his own purposes rather than giving evidence of truth,” the judge said.
Chan changed his testimony to bolster his claim that he was no mere fung shui master to Wang, but a lover. But the judge said Chan had been introduced to Wang as a fung shui master and had received substantial payments for his fung shui services.
The judge said Wang was serious about the will made in 2002, and the evidence showed she intended the foundation to continue with her charitable works.
Post a Comment