What evidence was insufficient to prove the advance payment?

Question

Accepted Answer

Insufficient Proof of Advance Payment Undermined Agent's HK$12 Million Claim Against Cecilia Cheung

A Hong Kong court has ruled that the former agent failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove that actress Cecilia Cheung received an advance payment of HK$2.76 million for her involvement in two films produced by Asia Entertainment Group (AEG) between 2011 and 2014. This finding was a key factor in the dismissal of a HK$12 million claim against Cheung.
Lack of Proof for Alleged Advance Payment

The judge determined that Samuel Yu Yuk-hing, president of AEG, did not successfully demonstrate that Cheung had been paid HK$2.76 million as an advance for her performances in two specific AEG film projects. The court's assessment found this lack of concrete evidence to be a significant failing in Yu's case against the actress.
Questionable Contractual Foundation

Further undermining the agent's claim, the court found that Cheung had not signed the exclusive management agreement upon which Yu's lawsuit was based. The judge also noted that a purported 2011 exclusive management contract was likely fabricated by Yu's brother during an investigation by Hong Kong's Inland Revenue Department into a separate HK$40 million payment from AEG to Cheung.
Credibility Issues of the Claimant

The judgment highlighted significant credibility issues with Samuel Yu himself, who was described by the judge as an "incredible" witness. Yu's testimony was found to be evasive and internally inconsistent, further weakening the basis of his legal action. The court also indicated Yu's willingness to forge documents to mislead tax authorities reflected poor business ethics.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What evidence was insufficient to prove the advance payment?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends