What led the court to doubt the authenticity of the 2011 contract?

Question

Accepted Answer

The Court Doubted the Authenticity of the 2011 Contract Due to Strong Indications of Forgery and Witness Credibility Issues

The Hong Kong High Court dismissed a HK$12 million claim brought by Samuel Yu Yuk-hing, president of Asia Entertainment Group (AEG), against actress Cecilia Cheung Pak-chi. The court found that the purported 2011 exclusive management contract, central to Yu's case, was highly likely to have been created by Yu’s younger brother. This suspicion arose after the Inland Revenue Department began investigating a HK$40 million payment AEG made to Cheung in July 2011, suggesting the contract's creation was timed to influence tax inquiries.
Suspicious Timing of Contract Creation

The judge noted that the alleged exclusive management contract from 2011 was likely fabricated by Samuel Yu's younger brother. This action occurred subsequent to the Hong Kong Inland Revenue Department initiating an investigation into a substantial HK$40 million payment made by AEG to Cheung in July 2011. The timing suggests a potential attempt to create documentation to mislead tax authorities regarding the nature of their business relationship and financial transactions.
Witness Credibility and Evasive Testimony

Mr Justice Herbert Au-yeung Ho-wing described Samuel Yu as an "incredible" witness during the proceedings. The court found Yu's testimony to be evasive and internally inconsistent across multiple points of his evidence. This lack of straightforwardness and reliability in his account significantly undermined the foundation of his claim, leading the court to question the veracity of his statements and the legitimacy of the documents he presented.
Evidence of Poor Business Ethics

The judgment explicitly stated that Samuel Yu demonstrated poor business ethics. This conclusion was based on his apparent willingness to forge documents with the intention of misleading tax authorities. Such conduct, involving the potential fabrication of contracts to deceive government departments, severely damaged his credibility and the court's confidence in the integrity of his claims and the supporting evidence.
Insufficient Proof of Agreement and Payment

Beyond the concerns about the contract's authenticity and Yu's testimony, the court also found a lack of sufficient proof regarding other key elements of the claim. Yu failed to establish that Cheung had ever signed the exclusive management agreement he relied upon. Furthermore, he could not adequately prove that Cheung had received an advance payment of HK$2.76 million, which was purportedly tied to her participation in two AEG films between 2011 and 2014.

Reading history

Hide →

This history is cleared when the page is closed.

What led the court to doubt the authenticity of the 2011 contract?

Loading

Was this article helpful?

Helpful

Not helpful

Report an issue

1

0

0

Share with friends