找回密碼
 立即註冊
搜索
熱搜: 活動 交友 discuz
查看: 11712|回覆: 0

共匪夫婦詐騙美國公司千萬 將溫哥華豪宅轉名14歲女判無效

[複製鏈接]

2330

主題

4

好友

2萬

積分

論壇元老

Rank: 8Rank: 8

發表於 2018-1-25 23:56:04 |顯示全部樓層
共匪夫婦詐騙美國公司千萬 將溫哥華豪宅轉名14歲女逃避還款被判無效

一對共匪夫婦涉嫌與美國華盛頓州一宗數百萬元商業詐騙案有關,該對夫婦早前把他們位於溫哥華西區一間房屋的業權,轉到女兒及另外兩個親屬的名下。卑詩最高法院裁定,該次物業轉名的意圖涉詐騙成分,故轉名無效,該間房屋要出售,以便賠款予美國一間公司。

據《溫哥華太陽報》(Vancouver Sun)報道,洋名Mary的楊姓(Yang,譯音)女子與洋名Samuel的朱姓(Zhu,譯音)丈夫,在2003年4月購買了位於溫哥華納瓦埃茲街(Narvaez Dr.)4800號路段一間房屋。在2008年11月,夫婦把該間兩層共6個睡房的房屋,轉名到當時14歲的女兒,以及楊的姊妹和姊妹的丈夫。根據卑詩物業估價處的資料,該間房屋現時的估價是613.2萬元。

該次物業轉名正值楊瑪麗與朱塞繆爾兩夫婦涉嫌與美國的商業詐騙有關。在2015年11月,華盛頓州一個陪審團裁定,楊婦要為一項欺詐行為,承擔720萬元賠償責任,該宗事件與一間名為普里馬科技公司(Prima Technology)有關。其後,該項裁決把金額增至超過1,100萬美元。案情透露,楊婦的朱姓丈夫是普里馬科技公司事發時在該公司任職總經理,而朱在未經公司授權下,利用普里馬科技公司的僱員,協助楊婦所擁有的公司Alux Inc.,並容許Alux Inc.向普里馬科技公司的顧客發出發票,但產品是屬於普里馬科技公司。

在2016年,卑詩最高法院裁定,原訴人可以根據華盛頓州的判決,在卑詩省提出訴訟,從中普里馬科技公司可以在卑詩省取回50萬元。

不過,普里馬科技公司其後得悉該對夫婦已把他們的西區物業轉名,於是入稟法院,要求法院頒令,裁定該次轉名無效及出售該間物業。

訛稱物業轉子女是中國傳統

與訟人楊婦解釋,把該物業轉名並不涉及欺詐,因為這符合中國傳統,就是父母都會在生前把財產包括房屋給予子女,而得到父母財產的子女都會准許雙親繼續住在家中。

經過審理,卑詩最高法院法官阿弗萊克科(Kenneth Affleck)作出裁定,並於周二在網上公布該項判決的內容。阿弗萊克在判決中不接納楊婦的解釋,指出如果父母把財產留給子女是中國的傳統,但以楊婦把該間房屋轉到女兒名下時,只有42歲,未免早了一些,因此楊瑪麗轉名的動機具欺詐成分,以免該間房屋牽涉入華盛頓州的官司。阿弗萊克裁定,該次房屋轉名無效,房屋要出售。

http://www.singtao.ca/toronto/2340088/2018-01-25/post-共匪夫婦詐騙美國公司千萬 將溫哥華豪宅轉名14歲女判無效/?variant=zh-hk

A judge has ordered the sale of a Vancouver home after finding that title to the property was fraudulently transferred by the owners, who had been implicated in a multimillion-dollar business fraud in Washington state.

Mary Yang and her husband, Samuel Zhu, bought the property at 4885 Narvaez Drive near Prince of Wales Secondary in April 2003. In November 2008, they transferred title to the two-storey, six-bedroom home, which has a current assessed value of $6 million, to Yang’s then-14-year-old daughter as well as Yang’s sister and the sister’s husband.

The property transfer came as a substantial claim was being made against Yang and her husband arising from their business dealings in the United States.

In November 2015, a jury in Washington state found that Yang was liable for $7.2 million US for fraudulent conduct related to a company called Prima Technology. That judgment was later increased to more than $11 million US.

A default judgment against Zhu, a former general manager at Prima Technology, was later determined to be more than $10 million US.


Improper bank transfers amounting to millions of dollars had been made from a company called Alux Inc., of which Mary Yang was the sole shareholder.

The Superior Court of Snohomish County found that Zhu used Prima employees without authorization to assist Alux and allowed Alux to invoice Prima’s customers for products belonging to Prima.

In 2016, the B.C. Supreme Court ordered that the Washington state judgments be registered against Yang and Zhu, with Prima able to recover about $500,000 from Yang in B.C.

Prima, which became aware of the transfer of the Vancouver home, then sought a court order in B.C. that the conveyance of the Narvaez home was void. Prima also sought an order for the property to be sold.

In a ruling posted at the court’s website Tuesday, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Kenneth Affleck said that the evidence was “overwhelming” that Yang was aware before she transferred the property that large claims had been made against her in the United States.

Yang argued that Prima’s claim was barred by the passage of time, but the judge rejected those arguments.

The defendant also claimed that the transfer of property was not fraudulent because it was consistent with a Chinese tradition of giving property to children who then permit their parents to remain living at the home.

But the judge said there was no evidence before him of such a custom apart from Yang’s bare assertion.

“Moreover, she was only 42 years old at the time of the conveyance when she transferred title in her home to her 14-year-old daughter and other close relatives,” said the judge. “It is plausible that there is a ‘Chinese custom’ of parents leaving property to their children, but to do so at a relatively young age of 42 years is not plausible.”

The judge said there were a number of “badges of fraud” that proved that Yang’s intention was fraudulent, including that she continued to live in the home after the conveyance, and that the transfer appeared to have divested her of her most substantial asset.

“In my opinion, there is a compelling inference that the conveyance of the real property was intended to defeat a potential judgment creditor, namely the plaintiff,” said Affleck.

The judge declared that the property transfer was void and ordered that it be sold in partial satisfaction of the Washington state judgments.

The judge said that any sale of the property would be subject to approval of the court.

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/judge-orders-sale-of-vancouver-home-fraudulently-transferred-to-family-of-owner
回覆

使用道具 舉報

您需要登錄後才可以回帖 登錄 | 立即註冊

回頂部