How did the judge link the 2011 contract to Inland Revenue scrutiny?

Question

Accepted Answer

The judge said the 2011 contract was likely created after Inland Revenue scrutiny began

The judge linked the purported 2011 exclusive management contract to the start of investigations by Hong Kong’s Inland Revenue Department by pointing to timing and context around a specific payment. The court found the contract was highly likely to have been created by Samuel Yu’s younger brother after the Inland Revenue Department began investigating a HK$40 million payment AEG made to Cheung in July 2011.
The court tied the contract to the July 2011 HK$40 million payment investigation
The ruling stated that the Inland Revenue Department began investigating a HK$40 million payment that AEG made to Cheung in July 2011. It was in the period after this investigation started that the judge assessed the 2011 exclusive management contract as being likely created.
The “created” finding depended on when the Inland Revenue probe began
The judge’s reasoning explicitly connected the contract’s disputed origin to the point when Inland Revenue scrutiny kicked off. The court concluded that the purported 2011 contract was highly likely to have been created after that investigative trigger, rather than earlier.
The contract was treated as unproven because its basis was not established
The High Court dismissed Yu’s claim because he failed to establish the foundation of the case. That included findings that Cheung never signed the exclusive management agreement Yu relied on, alongside insufficient proof that she received an advance payment tied to the projects.
The judge also questioned Yu’s credibility on document-related issues
In addition to linking the contract to the Inland Revenue investigation timeline, the judge described Yu as an “incredible” witness and said he was evasive and internally inconsistent. The judgment also said Yu demonstrated poor business ethics by being willing to forge documents to mislead tax authorities, which reinforced the court’s doubts about how the 2011 contract came about.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

How did the judge link the 2011 contract to Inland Revenue scrutiny?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends