CHANCERY DIVISION
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
JULIE ANNE PALMER AND NICHOLAS EDWARD REED (JOINT LIQUIDATORS OF CHANGTEL SOLUTIONS UK LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)) |
Applicants |
|
- and - |
||
JI-CHUEN JASON TSAI |
Respondent |
____________________
MR ANDREW YOUNG (instructed by Neil Davies & Partners) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 12 - 16 June, 22 - 23 June
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
See Committal for Contempt of Court
Mrs Justice Rose:
BACKGROUND
The law on liability for contempt
a. the burden of proving the contempt that it alleges lies on the Applicants. Insofar as Mr Tsai raises a positive defence he carries an evidential burden which he must discharge before the burden is returned to the Applicants.
b. the criminal standard of proof applies, so that the Applicants' case must be proved beyond reasonable doubt – or so that the court is sure. In case the meaning of this formulation were unclear, Phipson on Evidence (17th edition, 2009 at paragraph 6.51) cites the Privy Council in Walters v. R [1969] 2 AC 26 as indicating that "[a] reasonable doubt is that quality or kind of doubt which when you are dealing with matters of importance in your own affairs you allow to influence you one way or another".
c. The court needs to exercise care when it is asked to draw inferences in order to prove contempt. The law in this respect is summarised in a passage in the judgment of Teare J in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov [2012] EWHC 237 (Comm). Circumstantial evidence can be relied on to establish guilt. It is however important to examine the evidence with care to see whether it reveals any other circumstances which are or may be of sufficient reliability and strength to weaken or destroy the Applicants' case. If, after considering the evidence, the court concludes that there is more than one reasonable inference to be drawn and at least one of them is inconsistent with a finding of contempt, the applicants fail. Where a contempt application is brought on the basis of almost entirely secondary evidence, the court should be particularly careful to ensure that any conclusion that a respondent is guilty is based upon cogent and reliable evidence from which a single inference of guilt, and only that inference, can be drawn.
The law on penalty for contempt
"In contempt cases the object of the penalty is both to punish conduct in defiance of the court's order as well as serving a coercive function by holding out the threat of future punishment as a means of securing the protection which the injunction is primarily there to do."
"51. I shall not attempt to catalogue all those first instance decisions. What they show, collectively, is that any deliberate and substantial breach of the restraint provisions or the disclosure provisions of a freezing order is a serious matter. Such a breach normally attracts an immediate custodial sentence which is measured in months rather than weeks and may well exceed a year."
The HMRC proceedings and the winding up of Changtel
"In essence, Mr Tsai accepted that a series of statements made to the judge about the substantial nature of the company's business in January 2014 were false. He apologised. He also accepted that he had not told the judge that the company had sold its assets on 24 December 2013, and had itself been sold on 10 January 2014. He apologised that "at the [h]earing, financial information was presented regarding projected figures which were not accurate"."
Mr Tsai's responses to the Freezing Order
"The first affidavit does not provide a full and complete picture of my assets. This is predominantly because I did not have access to a lot of the relevant information in the short period of time in which I was required to make disclosure. I can say that I now have a much clearer understanding of the obligations placed on me by the Freezing Order. I continue to have difficulty obtaining information from financial institutions in the UK and abroad particularly where accounts with banking institutions are not registered in my name. However, I have now been able to obtain much more information and I wish to make good my non-compliance with the Freezing Order by providing a detailed picture of my assets including my interest in property which, for cultural, familial and other reasons, may not be reflected in its legal title. Most importantly, both I and my wife consider that the property which either of us owns, however the ownership is structured, is part of the single matrimonial estate in which we have at least an equal interest."
"It is now my understanding that the advice dispensed by Mr Brett was seriously flawed from the outset. I have now, with the assistance of an interpreter fluent in English and Mandarin, reviewed the profile of Mr Brett and I am shocked to discover that he was willing to act in a case so far beyond his skill set. … Mr Brett is a solicitor that specialises in criminal and regulatory law whose only experience of civil law practice appears to be civil proceeds of crime law and practice. This concerns me greatly because the advice I needed concerned issues of chancery, property and issues relating to beneficial ownership."
"11. I shall, throughout the course of this Fourth Affirmation refer to specific instances, but Mr Brett's consistent advice to me concerning any assets held by my wife [was] that I should declare them as assets owned by me because I could be said to hold some kind of beneficial interest in the assets by virtue of our marriage. There was no attempt by Mr Brett to enquire as to how individual assets (owned by my wife) came into existence, how they were funded or any regard to the particular jurisdiction in which the assets were held"
"It is with a heavy heart that I must conclude that both Mr Dean and Brett Wilson LLP have not served my interests at all well and have left me in an invidious position of having to defend my liberty against this present application."
The disclosure of Brett Wilson's files
"Dear Jason,
Thank you for coming in this morning. I attach a first working draft of the affidavit to be filed by Friday with some comments.
To summarise my advice, I do not think we will be able to make any progress in settlement negotiations until the Applicants are satisfied that we have made full and proper disclosure of all our assets. For the avoidance of any doubt, this includes any asset to which title may be registered in another name but in which you would be deemed to have an interest. If there is further alleged material non-disclosure then this will aggravate the committal application and the Applicants will be keen to pursue it. It is very much in your best interests to take the Order seriously and to comply with it. This means that you must not move, dissipate or in any way deal with any of your assets anywhere in the world."
"I understand concerns but I reiterate the primacy and importance of compliance with freezing injunction. If applicant still not satisfied a) we could not make any progress with claim and b) they will continue with contempt proceedings. Strongly advised to make full disclosure. Difficult for me to say how easy to enforce order in Far East but in any event I am an officer of the court and unable to do this".
"I am wondering whether Jason needs to declare his wife Jenny Chang's assets/bank accounts that may be solely in her name and which he retains no benefit from or has no access to?"
"Jason only needs to declare any assets/bank account in which he has an interest, regardless of legal title. It is not acceptable to move money into another person's account and not disclose this as Jason would have a beneficial interest in its contents. The RBS accounts in the UK, for example, must be disclosed on Jason's instructions yesterday. Your mother's interest in Jason's assets, however, are a very important issue in this case. If she has accounts in which he has no interest they do not need to be disclosed. I cannot advise on individual accounts without sight of the ledgers unfortunately."
The affirmations of Jen Yen Chu, Shu Hua Chang and Ai Chang Cheng
a. Jen Yen Chu who is Mr Tsai's brother-in-law (his wife and Mrs Tsai are sisters). He is resident in Taiwan.
b. Shu Hua Chang who is Mr Tsai's sister-in-law (his wife's sister) and is also resident in Taiwan.
c. Ai Chang Cheng who is also Mr Tsai's sister-in law (another sister of Mrs Tsai) who is also resident in Taiwan.
The hearing of the application for committal
"MR YOUNG: My Lady, there has been a development which I need to draw to the court's attention. During the course of this morning, Mr Tsai broke down and admitted to his solicitors that his fourth affirmation was not completely correct. He has admitted this. It therefore means that the skeleton argument I have prepared, certainly in that respect, is something that I cannot rely on. He wants to make a clean breast of it and the suggestion is this, subject, of course, to your Ladyship's views: if we could have the court's indulgence, his solicitors could amend his fourth affirmation to actually show the correct position with regard to assets and it could be before the court in the morning.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Is the correct position actually the third affirmation?
MR YOUNG: Well, essentially there are some disputes over matrimonial property, and what Mr Tsai did -- quite wrongly, and he has held his hands up to this -- is he suggested they are entirely his wife's property when in fact they are joint assets. Now, that was completely wrong and he will now admit that and give full and frank disclosure.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: I think we will open the case and then I think either you or Mr Robins can take him through either the third or fourth affirmations and we will elicit his evidence in that way. That way he will be on oath when he gives his evidence and he will have an interpreter and we can then be sure at least that the evidence he gives in the witness box is the evidence that he wishes to give in respect of these assets.
MR YOUNG: My Lady, yes.
MR ROBINS: My Lady, we would certainly not oppose my learned friend having an opportunity to clarify his client's evidence during a brief examination-in-chief if there is anything that Mr Tsai wants to correct in any of the evidence he has given, but of course he has had three bites of the cherry already, so needless to say we are quite surprised by this development."
"I just want to make known to the court and my Lady that I have made some errors and mistakes during my witness giving last week. I am sorry that I have wasted your time, and actually I don't know how it happened."
"All I want to say is I want the other counsel [sc. Mr Robins] to rely on my third affidavit, I think the items in the affidavit are more accurate if he wants to run quickly through those points again I will be quite happy for him to do so and probably only takes about an hour …"
Mr Tsai's health issues
"74. I am now 66 years old. In 2009 I was diagnosed with papillary carcinoma of the thyroid (cancer) and I required surgery.
75. I underwent a complete thyroidectomy (removal of the entire thyroid gland) by Dr Lee Chen Hsen of Taipei Veterans General Hospital on 27 February 2009. A large amount of cancerous material and the whole organ of thyroid gland were removed and I am in remission. I refer to these medical reports at [JT4 page 288] and [JT4 pages 289 to 290].
76. However, I must remain on daily medication (thyroxine 125mg daily) indefinitely to stay alive. The effects of my medical condition post-surgery and the side effects of the medication I must take daily have affected me greatly. These symptoms include confusion, poor memory, inability to concentrate and hold attention, chronic fatigue, and insomnia (that compounds my tiredness). I refer to the drugs advice sheet that warns of these side effects [JT4 page 291].
77. As I have explained above my hearing ability has deteriorated as I have aged. Unfortunately, this taken together with my dependence on medication has caused me to misunderstand several important aspects of this case, including advice dispensed by my former lawyers.
78. I received an Audiological Evaluation on 24 May 2017 that shows severe hearing problems [JT4 page 292].
79. Although I am told that I am lucky to still be alive after 5 years post-surgery, doctors in Taiwan and U.K. tell me that my life expectancy is reduced and further warn me that continuing to live a stressful life, as well as suffering from insomnia, will surely shorten my life further.
80. All of this has led to me being greatly confused and not dealing with matter as I could have when I was a younger man and fit."
a. The document exhibited at JT4 page 288 is a print out of his general practitioner's records listing all the problems that he has presented with over many years. It records 'total thyroidectomy' in February 2009 and then hypothyroidism in June 2009. It does not record any more recent problems other than gout.
b. The document exhibited at JT4 pages 289 and 290 is a one page "To Whom It May Concern" letter dated 11 May 2017 from the Taipei Veterans General Hospital certifying that Mr Tsai had a total thyroidectomy. It records the 'provisional diagnosis' as being papillary cancer of thyroid. Curiously it also purports to certify that he was a patient in that hospital on 11 May 2017 which was not correct. It does not refer to any long term sequelae from this operation.
c. The document exhibited at JT4 page 291 appears to be a photocopy of the information leaflet included in the packs of Levothyroxine prescribed for Mr Tsai. Mr Tsai has underlined some of the many possible side effects which the leaflet warns some people may experience when taking this medicine. These include confusion but also intolerance to heat, severe itching of the skin, fits, tremor, weight loss, and many other ranging from heart failure and coma to excitability and a "general feeling of being unwell".
d. The 'audiological evaluation' exhibited at JT4 page 292 was carried out by Specsavers in Birmingham for the fee of £20. The partially-completed, one-page results sheet purports to show profound hearing loss in both ears at some ranges and recommends bilateral hearing aids.
Mr Tsai's understanding of his obligations under the freezing order
Mr Tsai's understanding of the difference between legal and beneficial ownership
"Q. Now, could I ask you to look at your paragraph 113. Do you see the first sentence: "Account 001-034316-4-031 is my wife's account." Who is the beneficial owner?
A. Because of our marriage, so the account is joint account between me and my wife. Sorry, the name of the account is my wife's but I think because the virtue of my marriage, I think I am also the beneficiary owner to the account.
Q. So that is jointly owned by both Mr Tsai and his wife, is that correct, Mr Tsai?
A. The account name is hers.
Q. Yes. But what we are interested in is who actually owns the money, who has the right to it, who does it belong to?
A. Because of our marriage I think I should own half of the money in the account.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Well, regardless of your marriage, think about it this way: if you took some money out of that account and used it to buy yourself a new suit or a motorbike or something like that, would your wife say to you, "Hey, why have you done that, that's my money", or would she say "Well, that's all right, it is partly your money so you can use it to buy things for yourself"? That's what we are trying to get at here.
A. I can't withdraw any money from the bank account. The bank will not allow me to do so because the account is under her name.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: That's not really an answer to my question, is it, Mr Tsai? Is it money that, if you could get at it, you could spend it because it is partly yours? That's what we are trying to get at.
A. I don't know how to answer your question because I can't withdraw any money from the account, so how come I can spend any money from the account?
MR YOUNG: Mr Tsai, could I ask you this question: if you wanted to take some money out of that account to spend it on yourself, would your wife have any objection?
A. She never asked me this question so I don't know."
"MR YOUNG: Mr Tsai, are you composed and ready to continue? Now, alleged breach 32. This is the Bulgarian company.
A. Yes.
Q. It was said you failed to disclose it. That was right, wasn't it?
A. Yes, that's correct.
Q. At paragraph 149, you say that your wife and yourself own all of the shares in the company.
A. My son also owned some shares of the company.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Which son?
A. His name is John, John Tsai.
MR YOUNG: Are you able to help us with the percentage?
A. I am not entirely sure. Perhaps one-third.
Q. Mr Tsai, you understand the difference between legal ownership and beneficial ownership, don't you?
A. Yes, I understand.
Q. Who had the beneficial ownership of the shares?
A. Three of us had the beneficial interest.
Q. Does that remain the case?
A. Yes, it remains the case."
Findings as to Mr Tsai's credibility
The Breaches of the Passport Order: Allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4
"2. I am very sorry that I did not surrender my Taiwanese passport as agreed on 22 February. The truth is that I panicked. My wife was in Taiwan for medical treatment and I foolishly decided to leave the jurisdiction so that I could see her. I feared that otherwise I may not be able to see her for some time, or possibly at all. Instead of attending Court on 22 February, I flew to Taipei via Paris and Istanbul on the first available flight. My wife is suffering from acute coronary syndrome, mitral valve prolapse and angina. She is diabetic and she also suffers from hypertension.
3. She is nearly 67 years old. On 16 February, she was advised to have an operation to replace her mitral valve. This is something that we needed to discuss given the potential danger in such an operation. She has not had this operation and she remains unwell but stable. She is not in hospital.
4. I accept that my wife's ill health does not excuse my disobedience of the Freezing Order. I have not conducted myself as I should have done. I am taking all necessary steps to seek to rectify my earlier failure to adhere to the terms of the Freezing Order. Nevertheless, I unreservedly wish to extend my apology to the Court and to the Applicant for my conduct."
"28. I have explained in my Third Affirmation that my wife is in very poor health. My wife was subject to a medical examination on 03 February 2017. I refer to a medical report dated 16 February 2017 that demonstrates the extent of her poor health [JT4 pages 49 to 57]. I received this report (via my wife) at about the same time that I was served with the Freezing Injunction papers and had been expecting the report since the date of the examination on 03 February 2017.
29. The only reason I went to Taiwan on 22 February 2017 was to visit my wife who has serious health issues. The medical reports I have disclosed include CT (computer tomography of the blood vessels of the heart).
30. She has Acute Coronary syndrome (ACS), Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) with grade 3 systolic murmur, Angina Pectoris (chest pain and shortness of breath with activity and at rest). She has been diabetic for 21 years, with hypertension and anaemia. She has extensive intracranial artery stenosis, described as moderate to severe. She has severe degenerative changes to her cervical spine with stenosis and disc narrowing, particularly of C5-C6, accompanied by spur formation and intervertebral foramen stenosis. She is 67 years old this year and I am afraid that she is close to death.
31. She was advised on 16 February by the doctor (cardiologist) that it is better to do the heart operation but she could not make the decision on her own and relied upon me to help her make this decision. The operation does have a high risk of complications such as myocardial infarction (heart attack) and stroke due to her complex health issues.
32. I was frightened hat I might not have a chance to go to see her in this critical time if I was unable to travel to Taiwan. My wife's health problems persist and I refer to a recent report detailing my wife's health difficulties [JT4 pages 73 to 74]."
"38. I have explained that the 15 and 16 February 2017 were very significant days for me. I was served with complex court papers on the evening of 15 February 2017 at night time with a person having approached me as I sat in my car. On the 16 February 2017 my wife contacted me to tell me about her test results and the vitally important decisions she had to make about her future. I genuinely feared that she was close to death. …
"44. When I arrived in Taiwan it was late in the evening on 23 February 2017. I went straight to be at my wife's bed side at her home. She was seriously ill. I did not tell her about the Freezing Injunction because I feared it would make her more poorly.
45. When I received notice of the Committal application and hearing I knew that I would have to travel back to the UK to clear my name and deal with it.
46. My time in Taiwan was spent by my wife's bed side. I have explained that I arrived in Taiwan late in the evening on Thursday, 23 February 2017. On Friday, 24 February 2017 I was at my wife's bed side. The weekend accounted for Saturday, 25 February 2017 and Sunday, 26 February 2017. Public holidays fell in Taiwan on Monday, 27 February and Tuesday, 28 February 2017 and I refer information obtained from http://www.officeholidays.com/ countries/taiwan/ in this respect [JT4 page 281]. My return flight to the UK (being a 17 hour flight) was on 02 March 2017 at 9am. I arrived back in the UK late on 02 March 2017 (about 8 pm) and spoke with Mr Brett. He told me to meet him at court in the morning and he took my passport from me. If the allegation or insinuation is that I travelled to Taiwan to move and hide assets (which I deny and to which there is no evidence) then time would simply not have allowed that to happen. There were only two working days i.e. 24 February and 02 March 2017 for the whole period I stayed in Taiwan.
47. To the extent that I may have breached any Freezing Order relating to the surrender of my Taiwanese passport I sincerely apologise and I hope that the Court will recognise these extraordinary circumstances."
"Have been conducting various further investigations. Believe DBS Singapore account is now nearly empty and large amount of money was transferred to a Taiwanese Bank in HK. How much? Probably about £10m. This is a very serious breach of the injunction. I think we need to disclose that immediately. I would want to discuss with AB [sc. Andrew Bodnar of counsel] but instinct tells me it should be disclosed before it is put to us.
Also we discussed amounts in wife's name. Difficult to know where to draw the line but if in doubt then disclose it. If money is paid in by Jason then he probably has interest in them. Particularly given what they say about Jason and his tendency to use nominee names to shield his financial dealings.
I will speak to AB and get back to them. Obviously won't do anything without their consent"
"Q. And the second question you asked him: "Once they get DBS Singapore bank statements and they find out that all monies were in fact transferred by my wife physically, is there any possibility that they will issue a contempt order against my wife separately?" That was your second question, wasn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. The monies were transferred by your wife physically, Mr Tsai, weren't they?
A. Yes.
Q. She left Taiwan to go to Singapore and transferred the monies physically, didn't she?
A. Yes.
Q. So let's just rewind, Mr Tsai. You were served with the freezing order on 15 February, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. You dissipated the money from the Halifax account from 16 February onwards, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. You said you would deliver up your Taiwanese passport on 22 February, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. But you didn't, you used it to travel to Taiwan. Yes?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have said that you spent your time in Taiwan at your wife's bedside. That's what you have said, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. She was housebound with a nurse. That's your evidence, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. Close to death, was she?
A. Yes.
Q. And you didn't discuss the freezing order with her at all while you were there. That's right, is it?
A. No, not at all.
Q. So you came back to England on 2 March, didn't you?
A. Yes.
Q. At that point, your wife made a remarkable recovery, did she?
A. No. She was still not well when I left.
Q. But she was well enough to travel from Taiwan to Singapore, wasn't she?
A. No, it was -- I left her on 2 March and she went there on 9 March. That was quite some time.
Q. Seven days. So she staged a remarkable recovery in a week, yes?
A. I am not quite sure, but I know she is a very strong person. Strong minded and determined woman.
Q. She must be. She was well enough to transfer £8.6 million physically from Singapore to Taiwan, wasn't she?
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: What do you mean by "physically"?
MR ROBINS: It is Mr Tsai's word.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Yes. When you say she transferred the money "physically", I don't understand what that means. Do you mean she carried it out in cash or in gold bars, or do you mean just she went physically to the bank and instructed them to do it? What is it you are talking about there?
A. I apologise for my poor English. I meant she went to the bank in person.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: So she went to the bank in Singapore in person to instruct them to transfer the money?
A. Yes, because they require her to sign.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Yes.
MR ROBINS: She did that on 9 March, you say, yes?
A. Yes.
Q. That's why you really went to Taiwan to see your wife, isn't it?
A. Absolutely not. Because I had no idea she was going to transfer money.
Q. You were worried that the money in the DBS accounts could be traced back to the company, weren't you?
A. No, no, I don't know. They are not related.
Q. You went to Taiwan to create a plan with your wife about moving the monies to different bank accounts, didn't you?
A. No, we never discussed this."
a. an inward remittance authorised by Mrs Tsai on 10 March 2017 of £1,800,000;
b. an inward remittance authorised by Mrs Tsai on 13 March 2017 of £3,960,000
c. an inward remittance authorised by Mrs Tsai on 14 March 2017 of £509,000.
a. an inward remittance authorised by Shu Hua Chang on 28 February 2017 of £685,200
b. [Diagram or picture not reproduced in HTML version - see original .rtf file to view diagram or picture]an inward remittance authorised by Shu Hua Chang on 2 March 2017 of £1,650,000.
Penalty for Breaches 1 - 4
The Yi Lin Tsai bank account RBS 4905: Allegations 5, 6 and 7
a. Allegation 5 – that Mr Tsai lied about it in his First Affirmation when he said that it was owned solely by Mrs Tsai.
b. Allegation 6 - that Mr Tsai lied in his First Affirmation when he said that the account had been closed in 2014.
c. Allegation 7 - he failed to disclose his beneficial ownership.
a. an invoice from Clevo Co dated 1 July 2010 purporting to charge £54,215 for new product development
b. an invoice from Clevo Co dated 30 July 2010 purporting to charge £99,450 for sales commission
c. an invoice from Comex Telecom Corp dated 3 November 2011 purporting to charge £99,980 for "sales commission charge"
d. an invoice from Consolidated Marketing Corporation dated 1 July 2010 purporting to charge £99,585 for "commission payable the selling memory"
e. an invoice from Sunny Technologies Co Ltd dated 21 November 2011 purporting to charge £79,690 for "commission payable"
Penalty for breach 5
The Halifax current account 10978660: Allegation 16
Penalty for breach 16
Assets in the name of Mrs Tsai, Mr Tsai's wife
a. RBS account number 10125402. This bank account was disclosed by Mr Tsai in his First Affirmation but he said in JT1 it was solely owned by Mrs Tsai and he had no interest in the money. He said that it contained £116,000. In his Third Affirmation Mr Tsai accepted he had a beneficial interest in this account but in his Fourth Affirmation he retracted this admission on the basis that it was made because of Mr Brett's incorrect advice. This account is the subject of Allegation 9 alleging that he falsely stated that it was owned solely by Mrs Tsai.
b. Account number 10127057. Mr Tsai did not refer to this account in his First Affirmation. He disclosed its existence in his Third Affirmation and accepted he had a beneficial interest in this account but in his Fourth Affirmation he retracted this admission on the basis that it was made because of Mr Brett's incorrect advice. This account is the subject of Allegation 15 alleging that Mr Tsai failed to disclose existence of, and interest in this account. Mr Tsai has not given any value of the contents of this account. The only evidence appears to be a bank statement in February 2015 showing a substantial balance fluctuating between £109,000 and £204,000.
"A. My wife wanted me to manage her accounts and then if she sent a letter to her bank, my third party authority could be cancelled at any time. My new lawyer told me I shouldn't have any beneficial interest in those bank accounts because I was simply a manager of the bank account.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Why did your wife want you to manage her bank accounts?
A. Because she was not living in the UK, she was living in Taiwan.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Yes, but all the transactions are all made online, aren't they, or over the telephone, when we saw the bank statements. Why can't she do that online?
A. She has never done any transactions online before and she is scared of IT stuff.
MR ROBINS: In fact, Mr Tsai, I think you confirmed earlier that your wife doesn't even have an email account. Is that right?
A. I didn't say she didn't have an email address. What I meant was she had an email address but she hasn't been using her email address for many, many years. And if she did use it --
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: She used to use email but she doesn't now?
A. No.
THE INTERPRETER: My Lady, can the interpreter double check what Mr Tsai said?
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Yes.
THE INTERPRETER: Thank you.
A. So the purpose of her email address was for her to receive emails and she never replied to any of her emails. She used a more -- other apps such as WeChat and WhatsApp to communicate and to talk.
MR ROBINS: Sorry, I thought she was frightened of IT, but she is using all the latest apps, is she?
A. When she used WeChat or WhatsApp, she could only send voice messages. She didn't type any text and we had to set up those two accounts for her so she could just use them.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Right, thank you.
MR ROBINS: You said she hadn't used email for many, many years. "Many, many" sounds like a long time. Is that ten years, nine years, eight years? What do you mean?
A. I would say four or five years."
Penalties for Breaches 9 and 15
a. Julius Baer & Co bank in Hong Kong account 9835508 in the name of Sonic Luck Ltd containing £2,062,020. This is the subject of Allegation 41 that Mr Tsai failed to disclose his interest in this money;
b. Julius Baer & Co bank in Hong Kong account 9835568 in Mrs Tsai's name (Jenny Chang) containing £32,822. This is the subject of Allegation 42 that Mr Tsai failed to disclose his interest in it.
Penalties for breaches 41 and 42
a. Taipei Fubon Commercial Bank in Hong Kong account number 950-800-34328-3 containing a balance of £6,338,012. This is registered in Mrs Tsai's name. It is the subject of Allegation 39 that Mr Tsai failed to disclose this account and his interest in the money;
b. Taipei Fubon Commercial Bank in Hong Kong number 950-800-34327-8 containing a balance of £3,927,702. This account is registered in the name of All Rich Co Ltd which, as I understand it, is a corporate vehicle wholly owned by Mrs Tsai. It is the subject of Allegation 40 that Mr Tsai failed to disclose this account and his interest in the money.
"MR YOUNG: Now look at alleged breach 39. This is the Taipei Fubon Commercial Bank.
A. Yes.
Q. Now turn to paragraph 166. You tell us that there's £6,338,012 in this account and it is registered solely in your wife's name. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Well, that's a lot of money, wouldn't you agree?
A. Yes, it should be.
Q. Do you know where that money came from?
A. I am not sure. The money was her money and she didn't tell me where or how she got the money. I think she probably inherited this amount of money.
Q. Have you ever had any discussions with your wife about the money she may have inherited?
A. She inherited the money from her dad. Her dad died over 30 years ago and then she inherited the money from him.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Her father died over 30 years ago.
A. Yes, he died in 1983.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Did he have a wife?
A. He had.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: We have heard that she has the two sisters. Does she have any other brothers and sisters?
A. Yes, she does.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: What other brothers and sisters does she have?
A. There are nine. She has basically eight siblings, so nine children in her family, including herself.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: And before she became so ill, your wife, what was her work? What did she do for a living?
A. She didn't work in Taiwan.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Did she work anywhere?
A. She worked in the UK before.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: What work did she do in the UK?
A. In 1990, she and -- she helped me start our business in the UK.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Right.
MR YOUNG: You tell us that your wife has eight siblings. Are they all wealthy?
A. They are very wealthy.
Q. When you say very wealthy, do you mean they have equivalent wealth to your wife, is your wife a lot richer?
A. Her siblings are wealthier than her.
Q. Are you able to tell us the name of your wife's late father?
A. So his name is Wun-Shu Chang.
…
MR YOUNG: Was your late father-in-law well known in Taiwan?
A. Yes, he was very well known in Taiwan.
Q. Are you able to tell us the nature of his business?
A. So he was the chairman of the Association of Import and Export in Taiwan and his business covered the field of import and the trade. His business also covered oil, rice, bean and sugar.
Q. Can you tell us if your wife knows about the litigation that is taking place today?
A. She doesn't know this litigation at all. I am afraid to tell her.
Q. Did you discuss your wife's wealth with Mr Brett?
A. I think he didn't ask about my wife's wealth.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: If you just listen to the question again and answer the question.
MR YOUNG: Did you discuss your wife's wealth with Mr Brett?
A. No.
Q. Do you still think that Mr Brett's advice to you was wrong?
A. Yes, his advice was wrong."
"When I married your Mum, I had nothing apart from a very small land in Guan-Miao in Tainan, which I sold to my 4th brother when I was 35 years old for $10,000.
Everything we have now was earned by Mum and myself through intelligent and hard-working"
Penalties for breaches 39 and 40
"Q. You were paying the bills with money from the YL Tsai account because Apartment 44 is one of your properties?
A. I think your saying is not logical. I only acted upon my wife's instruction. I didn't own the property.
Q. So you are saying your wife instructed you to take money out of your sister's account to pay an electricity bill for your wife's property?
A. Yes. It may be because between -- they had agreement in Taiwan.
Q. Mr Tsai, it is because it is one of your properties.
A. Impossible.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Well, and also the money in the YL Tsai account, it is being put to you, is actually not your sister's money, it is your money.
A. Like I mentioned before, I managed the bank account of YL Tsai and the money on YL Tsai's bank account was not mine.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: But I still don't understand why your sister is paying the electricity bill for your wife's apartment. I can understand why your wife would want your sister to pay the electricity bill, but I can't understand why your sister would want to pay the bill.
A. Like I mentioned earlier, they had -- perhaps they had an agreement in Taiwan. They had a very close relationship. I don't know the actual reason why."
Penalty for breach 49
"Q. Okay, all right. Let's just break this down: you accept you used to have shares in Lead Summit?
A. Yes.
Q. I think you have told us that although you had shares, you can't exactly remember what the percentage of your shareholding was, is that right?
A. That's right.
Q. All right. In 2015, when you say you ceased to have an interest, what did you do with that interest?
A. Again, I did some paperwork in relation to my shares but no actual money involved.
Q. All right. Now, the shares: did you give the shares or sell the shares to somebody else?
A. I should be -- so I should have given my shares to someone because there was no money involved.
Q. I want to be very careful on what is being said here, Mr Tsai. When you say "I should", do you mean that you did, or do you mean something else?
A. I gave my shares to someone –
Q. You gave your shares to somebody?
A. -- because there was no actual money involved.
Q. All right. Can you tell us who it was you gave the shares to?
A. I gave my shares to other shareholders, but I don't know who they were. I just signed my name on the paperwork.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Are they members of your family or are they completely different people?
A. They should be my family members.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Were they your family members, were they not, or you don't know?
A. I am not hundred per cent sure because I was asked to sign my name, so I just signed my name.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Who asked you to sign your name?
A. An agent.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: What kind of agent?
A. It's an overseas investment agent.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: So an overseas investment agent asked you to sign a document, and you signed it, and that involved you giving away your shares in Lead Summit but you don't know to whom you gave them. Is that your evidence?
A. That's correct. I just -- I forget what happened."
Penalty for breach 29 and breaches 33 and 34 in relation to Dun Hua South Road/ Sunrise Property Developments Ltd and Lead Summit
Assets in the name of Shu Hua Chang
"NMB thinks we need to deal with the SH Chang problem, he doesn't think the liquidator is going to believe she is a successful business woman. NMB says the email evidence is compelling and contemporaneous. NMB says if we are going to accept that SH Chang is a symbolic name, he would rather do that now than further down the line. Credibility damaged and NMB would like to make repairs to that, NMB is not pushing client to say anything or not tell the truth. Client says she won't come forward and make an affidavit. NMB says that is difficult, High Court judge won't see why a successful business woman wouldn't go to a local solicitor and give an affidavit. Client says traditional business that doesn't have credibility would be difficult to have an affidavit.
…
Client speaks with Andrew - thinks it is going to be difficult to prove SH Chang. NMB asks outright, is SH Chang a name uses to disguise own business dealings. Yes."
"It is going to be difficult for SH Chang, AC Cheng, Jen-Yen Chu to sign those letters.
In fact they were frightened and don't want to be involved any more in "figure head" things related to me and my wife.
They don't understand English at all and they think that they might be in prison for money laundering. It means seriously to them that if they sign anything again they are involved again.
Even my wife she thinks those accounts are in her own name and she can't allow anyone including myself to know the bank details and statements etc"
a. Mr Tsai set up an email address shiaochuen@gmail.com which he used without any apparent reference back to Shu Hua Chang. Mr Tsai said in cross-examination that Shu Hua Chang does not know how to use email and he used that address on her behalf. However it was clear from other documentary evidence that Mr Tsai sent and received emails from this account on matters which had nothing to do with Shu Hua Chang's business.
b. Mr Tsai also set up another email address ShuHuaChang@entagroup.com which he used generally for his business dealings on matters which had nothing to do with Shu Hua Chang.
c. As I described below in relation to the loan purportedly from Shu Hua Chang to Andrew, Mr Tsai assured Andrew that the use of Shu Hua Chang's name in the loan of £1.4 million was "symbolic" only. This is discussed further in relation to Allegation 35 which relates to that loan.
"In Taiwanese culture when you help a family relative with possessions and properties, we treat it and take care of it as our own. In my Third Affirmation, I did not object as Nick Brett drafted the document in such a way to claim beneficial ownership in the property. However, I have no interest in the property. Only Shu Hua Chang can sell it and claim the proceeds."
Penalty for breaches 23 and 24
"So client owns beneficial interest in 1 The Coppice – yes? NMB says to a certain extent it doesn't matter if we admit to accepting the money from 2 The Coppice. 1TC is now worth about £500k. No one lives there now. NMB says so what we can acceptably say is that client and foundation occupy TC 'complex'. NMB says it looks more clear with the charitable foundation, client and the foundation occupy TC complex - business and home"
Penalty for breaches 25 and 26
"MR ROBINS: Do you see on the second page halfway down, it says, "By consent it is ordered that".
A. Yes.
Q. This is an order that you consented to, isn't it?
A. Yes. This is consent between the two solicitors --
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Wait for the question, please.
MR ROBINS: It was an order that you consented to, wasn't it, Mr Tsai?
A. No, this is a consent by the solicitors.
Q. The solicitors aren't being sued, are they, Mr Tsai?
A. As I remembered, this is consent made by two solicitors, hence the adjournment.
Q. So you say your solicitors consented to this without telling you about it, do you? Is that what you are going to say?
A. They didn't ask me anything. They gave the consent.
Q. Mr Tsai, your answers are predictable. You gave instructions to your solicitors to consent to this order, didn't you?
A. As I said, they did not specifically ask me about it because this is very similar to the previous ones.
Q. This order extended the freezing order to cover lots of additional assets in which you admitted at that point in time to having an interest. That's what this order does, isn't it?
A. Yes.
Q. So you had admitted to having an interest in all these assets and this extends the freezing order to cover them, yes?
A. As I said earlier, and it is true, they did not ask me anything and there was an adjournment. But they didn't ask me anything.
Q. You had admitted to having an interest in all of these assets and this order extended the freezing order to cover them, didn't it?
A. That should not have been the case, no.
Q. Well, on page 5, number 18 is 33 Park Lane. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. And you consented to the freezing order covering that property because you have a beneficial interest in it, don't you?
A. No. I didn't really pay a lot of attention to this, but this one was covered in the first freezing order.
Q. No, it wasn't. The liquidators hadn't discovered it by the time of the first freezing order. It was covered by the third freezing order because they had discovered it by that point and you had admitted to having an interest in it. That's right, isn't it?
A. Yes, I remember now. This was added after the third affirmation.
Q. Yes, you consented to the freezing order covering 33 Park Lane because you admitted to having an interest in it. That's right, isn't it?
A. Yes, correct. This is based on the third affirmation.
Q. And the third affirmation is true, isn't it?
A. No.
Q. So your evidence is that you never saw this order before and seeing it now, you realise that it is just a colossal mistake?
A. No. Basically after third affirmation, naturally they added this to the order and nobody asked me.
Q. You didn't see this order at the time then?
A. Yes, I saw it afterwards. After the court order.
Q. Afterwards. But not before?
A. No, I was shown the draft by my solicitor. I didn't object to anything because it was based on my third affirmation.
Q. And you didn't object because your third affirmation is true, isn't it?
A. It was not true but I didn't notice it and it was a mistake.
Q. In fact, Mr Tsai, you paid close and careful attention to the draft order, didn't you?
A. No."
Penalty for breach 47
"MR YOUNG. Thank you. Now let's look at alleged breach 50, duplicate complaint about a loan to Entatech UK Ltd. This is a substantial loan of some 2.3 million. Why did your wife's sister Shu-Hua Chang make that loan?
A. Because at that time she had some spare money and Entatech UK Ltd suffered cash flow difficulties so she was to help this company.
Q. Any particular reason why your wife didn't lend that money?
A. Because Shu-Hua Chang had spare money and she was willing to help.
Q. But it is also true that your wife had spare money in various bank accounts, isn't it?
A. I am not sure about the arrangement between them. They have a very close relationship. Perhaps my wife persuaded her sister to offer help to the company.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: Do you know whether that happened or not? When you say "perhaps", is that your evidence that that happened?
A. It is only my guess.
MR YOUNG: This is a large sum of money. Was it secured?
A. It is not secured.
Q. Do you know where the source of the money was coming from? Where did Shu-Hua Chang get it from?
A. I don't know.
Q. Did you ever ask?
A. Never asked.
Q. Was there any kind of due diligence at this time, any money laundering checks?
A. No, we didn't carry out any due diligence.
Q. Is it possible that in some way this money originally came from you, Mr Tsai?
A. Not possible."
Penalty in relation to Breach 50
"Dear Dad,
I'm a bit unclear by that specific point, as it's very ambiguous- 'compromise the relationship' could mean anything, especially as it is between the lender (Chang Shu-Hua) and us, not between you and us. It might even be possible to say that our relationship with Chang Shu Hua is already 'compromised' right now because we haven't seen each other for years. Is there anything else we can replace it with?"
"You can re-word it to the relationship between the borrowers and the first borrower's parents. It is designed to guarantee a good moral relationship between you and us. SH Chang is just a symbolic name as you know."
"Thanks I have kept the document as you have said, I understand that the name is just symbolic. The document is attached."
"MR YOUNG: Can you tell us why she might have made a gift of 1.4 million?
A. It is because when my son was little, he stayed with Shu-Hua Chang and he had a close relationship with Shu-Hua Chang. And also between at age of 15 and at age of 18, my son frequently visited her in Taiwan.
Q. The 1.4 million she gave to your son and his wife, do you know the source of that money?
A. From her bank account.
Q. Do you know how that money got into the bank account? A. It was her money. I don't know how she got the money.
Q. Did you ever make any payments to Shu-Hua Chang directly?
A. No.
Q. Did you arrange for any payment to be made to her indirectly?
A. No.
…
MR YOUNG: All right. So you can't help us as to the source of Shu-Hua Chang's money that was given to your son and his wife?
A. That's right, it was her money. I don't know where she got the money from."
"MRS JUSTICE ROSE: What you are being asked about is in the emails between you and your son, you referred to the name Shu-Hua Chang being a symbolic name or being used in a symbolic manner, and you are being asked what did you mean by that when you used that phrase?
A. What I meant by symbolic name, I told my son that Shu-Hua Chang loan agreement is only symbolic, you don't need to be afraid. Shu-Hua Chang would not ask you to pay Shu-Hua Chang back. But however, my son was still very concerned by this Shu-Hua Chang loan agreement so in the end, I made a deed of gift -- sorry, the interpreter's correction. So in the end, there was a deed of gift between Shu-Hua Chang and my son.
MR YOUNG: I would just like to be clear on this: are you sure you have just not been using the same Shu-Hua Chang for your own purposes?
A. Not for my purpose to use."
"I was not in a stable status at that time caused by my health problem. I had cancer and I was on medication and my mind was in a mess and I had a limited time which was only over one hour comment on the document was provided to me by my solicitor at 2:44 in the afternoon and I prepared for the document after that and gave it back to him at 4 o'clock in the afternoon"
Penalty in respect of Breach 35
Other bank accounts in the names of Mr Tsai's family members
a. There are nine bank accounts with Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A ('BBVA') in Spain; three in the name Ai Chang Cheng (BBVA bank accounts numbers ending 78010, 47025 and 47032); three in the name of Shu Hua Chang (BBVA bank accounts numbers ending 78027, 48028 and 48035) and three in the name of Jen Yen Chu (BBVA bank accounts numbers ending 18129, 10024 and 49039). These are the subject of Allegation 44 that Mr Tsai failed to disclose his interest in these bank accounts. Most of these accounts have small balances, the largest being slightly over €17,000.
b. There are nine bank accounts with Solbank three in the name of Ai Chang Cheng (Solbank accounts ending 32606, 70202 and 93037); three in the name of Shu Hua Chang (Solbank accounts ending 32507, 80203 and 20306) and three in the name of Jen Yen Chu (Solbank accounts ending 45711, 10206 and 50309). These are the subject of Allegation 45 that Mr Tsai failed to disclose his interest in them. All these accounts have small balances of under £500.
"Q. Mr Tsai, this marriage reason that you keep talking about wouldn't apply to Jen-Yen Chu or Ai-Chang Cheng, would it?
A. Because my wife can control these bank accounts, so I thought if she could control those bank accounts, I should have some interest in the bank accounts.
Q. So your wife controls the Ai-Chang Cheng, Shu-Hua Chang and Jen-Yen Chu bank accounts now, does she? THE INTERPRETER: Sorry, Mr Tsai pointed out that the interpreter's made error. She shouldn't use "control", this word. It should be "third party authority".
MR ROBINS: Mr Tsai, your English is good enough to correct the interpreter, is it? That's very impressive.
A. "Control" is a simple English word. I just don't have a good hearing ability.
MRS JUSTICE ROSE: So your evidence is that because your wife has a third party authority on these accounts in -- these are both her sisters, aren't they? -- her sisters' names, you thought that you needed to include them in the third affirmation?
A. Yes, yes. That was an error.
MR ROBINS: Mr Tsai, you accepted that you had an interest in these accounts because they are your property.
A. No, they are not. Banks don't know me."
Penalties in relation to Breaches 44 and 45
a. account number 001-034316-4-031 in the name of Mrs Tsai; and
b. account number 0013-000725-1 in the name of Jen Yen Chu who is Mr Tsai's brother-in-law.
Penalty in respect of Breach 18
2 The Coppice: Allegations 27/28
"The property known as 2 The Coppice was my family home. My wife and I purchased the property on 8 December 1989. We held the title to the property as joint tenants. On 25 September 2013, we sold this property to the Tsai Lau-Chi Charitable Foundation for £650,000 which was market value. I am a trustee of the Foundation (a UK registered charitable trust number 1069997) and, in my capacity as trustee, I currently permit myself to live there rent free. I undertake work on behalf of the Trust from these premises. The property was purchased by the trust funds acquired by the trust via donations from Enta Technologies since 1998. I consider that I no longer have any personal interest in this property."
Penalty for breaches 27/28
Assets in the name of Ai Chang Cheng
"Apt 241 [sc. 214] – Ai Chang Cheng – sister in law as well, client is true owner of that with wife. Jointly held with wife."
Penalties for breaches 20, 21, and 22
Other alleged breaches: real estate in England
Penalty for breach 48
Other alleged breaches
"Owing to the time pressures in having to provide all of this information, my bad health, poor memory and inadequate legal advice I omitted to provide information about this company. Also it has always been managed by the estate agent locally and the annual return has been negative since 2005 due to its nature of short seasonal holiday property (10 weeks rentable in summer per year). The rental income cannot cover the cost of maintenance and agency fees at all".
Overall penalty
DEBARRING ORDER
"[The] legitimate aim in imposing a sanction is to secure compliance with court orders, which in the instant case were made to ensure the effectiveness of freezing orders. The imposition of a sanction is proportionate if it is reasonably necessary for achieving that aim. The essence of the right of access to court is not destroyed because the litigant has the opportunity to seek relief against the sanction."
"In my judgment if the court makes an order for disclosure for information or documents it is entitled, in the event of non-compliance, to order that if such non-compliance is persisted in the Claimant will be at liberty to enter judgment. Were it otherwise, in many cases the order will be without effect".
"52. The unless order would not be made because the court is indignant that the defendant has flouted the court's disclosure order, but because the unless order may cause the defendant to reconsider his position and comply, belatedly, with the disclosure order. Whether it is appropriate to make such an order in any particular case will depend upon a consideration of the particular circumstances of the case."
"116. Thus the judge granted the unless orders, not because the fairness of a trial had been or was likely to be prejudiced in relation to the determination of its issues in themselves, but so that orders of the court, which had been made in the interests of justice, could be supported against a recalcitrant litigant; so that that recalcitrant litigant, Mr Ablyazov, could be encouraged, by the threat that otherwise his litigation would be lost, to comply with the orders of the court and its pursuit thereby of the interests of justice; and so that the opposing party in the litigation, the bank, would not be unfairly prejudiced by the need to conduct litigation which Mr Ablyazov was both treating with contempt and at the same time seeking to make, ultimately, more or less worthless. In such circumstances, without proper compliance with the orders of the court there was a substantial risk of injustice".
Discussion on the application for a debarring order
CONCLUSION
a. For the breaches relating to the passport order 1, 2, 3 and 4: 15 months' for each breach to run concurrently;
b. For the breaches relating to the bank accounts breaches 5 (4 months), 9 (10 months), 15 (10 months), 16 (4 months), 18 (18 months), 39 (18 months), 40 (18 months), 41 (18 months), 42 (18 months), 44 (10 months) and 45 (10 months) to run concurrently;
c. For the breaches relating to real property breaches 20/21/22 (16 months), 23/24 (16 months), 25/26 (16 months), 27/28 (18 months), 29 (18 months), 47 (16 months), 48 (18 months) and 49 (16 months) to run concurrently;
d. For breach 35 (loan to Andrew), four weeks;
e. For breach 50 (loan to Entatech), 6 months.
POST SCRIPT
I accept that the period between the end of the trial and the hand down of judgment must be a very worrying time for Mr Tsai. I see no point prolonging that period given that his anxiety and stress cannot of itself be a reason to defer handing down of the judgment and is not a reason to desist from imposing the appropriate custodial sentence.
CASE NO CR-2013-005582
Allegation | Description | Liability [paras of judgment] |
Penalty |
1 to 4 | Failure to deliver up Taiwanese passport either immediately or on the return date 22 February 2017; use of Taiwanese passport to travel to Taiwan on 22 February 2017; failed to deliver up Taiwanese passport until 3 March 2017 |
Proven [105] – [124] |
15 months' imprisonment for each count to run concurrently |
5, 6 and 7 | RBS acc. no. 10074905 sort code 16-33-17 – Allegation 5 - falsely stated that it was owned solely by Mrs Tsai. Allegation 6 – falsely stated that it had been closed in 2014. Allegation 7 – failed to disclose beneficial interest |
Proven [125] – [140] Not pursued Not pursued |
4 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 9, 15, 16, 18, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 and 45 |
8 | RBS acc. no. 10095996 sort code 16-20-29 – falsely stated he was not aware of it. |
No finding [283] | n/a |
9 | RBS acc. no. 10125402 sort code 16-13-05 - falsely stated that it was solely owned by Mrs Tsai. |
Proven [150] – [156] | 10 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 5, 15, 16, 18, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 and 45 |
10 | RBS acc. no. 10819772 sort code 16-33-17 – falsely stated that it contained £59,000. |
Not proven [284] | n/a |
11 | RBS acc. no. 10819781 which contained £57,460 - failed to disclose beneficial ownership |
Not proven [284] | n/a |
12 | RBS acc. no. 10076584 sort code 16-33-17 - failed to disclose existence of, and interest in this account |
Not proven [285] | n/a |
13 | RBS acc. no. 10814046 sort code 16-33-17 - failed to disclose existence of, and interest in this account |
Not proven [286] | n/a |
14 | RBS acc. no. 11421704 sort code 16-33-18 - failed to disclose existence of, and interest in this account |
Not proven [287] | n/a |
15 | RBS acc. no. 10127057 sort code 16-13-05 - failed to disclose existence of, and interest in this account. |
Proven [150] – [156] | 10 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with sentences for breaches 5, 9, 16, 18, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 and 45 |
16 | Halifax acc. no. 10978660 sort code 11-00-58 - failed to disclose existence of, and interest in this account |
Proven [141] – [147] | 4 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 5, 9, 15, 18, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 and 45 |
17 | Procredit Bank, Bulgaria acc IBAN number BG18PRCB92301029446617 - failed to disclose existence of, and interest in this account |
Proven [288] | No separate penalty |
18 | DBS bank accounts in Singapore account number 001-034316-4-031 in the name of Mrs Tsai and account number 0013-000725-1 in the name of Jen Yen Chu – failed to disclose the existence of and his interest in these accounts |
Proven [254] – [259] |
18 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 5, 9, 15, 16, 39, 40, 41, 42, 44 and 45 |
19 | First Commercial Bank, Taipei acc. no. 10250162741 -- failed to disclose existence of, and interest in, |
Proven [289] | No separate penalty |
20/21/22 | Apartment 214, 51 Sherborne Street, Birmingham B16 8FP (approx value £350,000) – falsely stated that he had a tenancy 1 August 2015 to 31 July 2016 – falsely stated that the property was owned by Ai-Chang Cheng – failed to disclose his beneficial interest in the property |
Proven [269] – [275] | 16 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with each other and with the sentences for breaches 23/24, 25/26, 27/28, 29, 47, 48 and 49 |
23/24 | Apartment 338, Canal Wharf, 14 Waterfront Walk, Birmingham B1 1SR (approx value £130,000) – falsely stated that it was solely owned by Shu Hua Chang – failed to disclose his beneficial interest in it |
Proven [202] – [208] | 16 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with each other and with the sentences for breaches 20/21/22, 25/26, 27/28, 29, 47, 48 and 49 |
25/26 | 1 The Coppice, Old Park, Telford TF3 4TF (approx value £400,000) – falsely stated that it was solely owned by Shu Hua Chang – failed to disclose his beneficial interest in the property |
Proven [209] - [218] | 16 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 20/21/22, 23/24, 27/28, 29, 47, 48 and 49 |
27/28 | 2 The Coppice, Old Park, Telford TF3 4TF (approx value £650,000) – falsely stated that he had sold the property to the Tsai Lau-Chi Charitable Foundation on 25.09.13. – failed to disclose his beneficial interest in it |
Proven [260] - [267] | 18 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 20/21/22, 23/24, 25/26, 29, 47, 48 and 49 |
29 | Residential property at 12F-1, No 6, Tan King Road, TanShui, Xing Pei City 25161 ('Tan King Road') and office property at 12F-1, 200, Section 1, Dun Hua South Road, Taipei ('Dun Hua South Road') – failed to disclose his interest in these properties |
Not proven as regards Tan King Road [185] -[188] Proven as regards Dun Hua South Road [185] – [193] |
n/a 18 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 20/21/22, 23/24, 25/26, 27/28, 47, 48 and 49 |
30 | JJJ Newport LLC/ 9136 Honey Maple Avenue, Las Vegas -- gave false information about the property owned by this company by saying that it was 1901 Newport Bay Drive Las Vegas. |
No finding [290] – [292] | n/a |
31 | JJJ Marina Estates LLC/ 1901 Newport Bay Drive Las Vegas, -failed to disclose interest in this company. |
No finding [290] – [292] | n/a |
32 | Bulgata OOD, Bulgaria/Apartment B-22, Golden Sands Complex, Varna, Bulgaria -- failed to disclose interest in this company |
Proven [293] - [295] | No separate penalty |
33 | Sunrise Property Development Ltd - failed to disclose his interest his Taiwanese company (which owns, directly or indirectly, Dun Hua South Road). |
See Allegation 29 | See Allegation 29 |
34 | Lead Summit Ltd (incorporated in the Seychelles) or Richman Investment Co Ltd (incorporated in Anguilla). |
See Allegation 29 | See Allegation 29 |
35 | Receivable in respect of loan of £1.4 million to Andrew Tsai – failed to disclose interest in this receivable |
Proven [234] – [247] | Four weeks' imprisonment |
36 | Porsche car Registration N6YTC - failed to disclose interest in this asset |
No finding [296] | n/a |
37 | Edificio Benal Beach, Apartment M 505, Block 2, Av del Parque, Malaga, Spain (approx value £40,000) - falsely stated that property was wholly owned by Mrs Tsai |
Not proven [181] – [184] | n/a |
38 | Apartment 202, 2nd Floor, Section B, Isla De Poniete, Benalmadena, Spain. (approx value £150,000) – Falsely stated that property was wholly owned by Mrs Tsai |
Not proven [181] – [184] | n/a |
39 | Taipei Fubon Commercial Bank acc. no. 950-800-34328-3 - failed to disclose existence of or interest in account with balance of £6,338,012 |
Proven [165] – [172] | 18 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 5, 9, 15, 16, 18, 40, 41, 42, 44 and 45 |
40 | Taipei Fubon Commercial Bank acc. no. 950-800-34327-8 - Failed to disclose existence of or interest in account with balance of £3,927,702 |
Proven [165] – [172] | 18 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 5, 9, 15, 16, 18, 39, 41, 42, 44 and 45. |
41 | Julius Baer & Co Ltd bank in Hong Kong acc. no. 9835508 - failed to disclose his interest in this account holding balance of £2,062,020 |
Proven [157] – [164] | 18 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 5, 9, 15, 16, 18, 39, 40, 42, 44 and 45 |
42 | Julius Baer & Co Ltd bank in Hong Kong acc. no. 9835568 -- failed to disclose the existence of and his interest in this account holding balance of £32,822 |
Proven [157] – [164] | 18 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 5, 9, 15, 16, 18, 39, 40, 41, 44 and 45 |
43 | Halifax bank acc. nos. 10978868 and 10978769 - failed to disclose the existence of and his interest in these savings accounts |
Proven [297] | No separate penalty |
44 | Nine bank accounts with Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, S.A ('BBVA') in Spain; three in the name Ai Chang Cheng (BBVA bank accounts numbers ending 78010, 47025 and 47032); three in the name of Shu Hua Chang (BBVA bank accounts numbers ending 78027, 48028 and 48035) and three in the name of Jen-Yen Chu (BBVA bank accounts numbers ending 18129, 10024 and 49039) – failed to disclose the existence of and his interest in them | Proven [248] – [253] | 10 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 5, 9, 15, 16, 18, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 45 |
45 | Nine bank accounts with Solbank three in the name of Ai Chang Cheng (Solbank accounts ending 32606, 70202 and 93037); three in the name of Shu Hua Chang (Solbank accounts ending 32507, 80203 and 20306) and three in the name of Jen Yen Chu (Solbank accounts ending 45711, 10206 and 50309) – failed to disclose the existence of and his interest in them |
Proven [248] – [253] | 10 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 5, 9, 15, 16, 18, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 44 |
46 | Bank accounts with Sinopac in Taipei numbered 046-004-002550-8 and 046-008-0001688-2 - failed to disclose the existence of and his interests in these accounts |
Proven [298] | No separate penalty |
47 | 33 Park Lane, Old Park, Telford, Shropshire, TF3 4TE – failed to disclose an interest in this asset |
Proven [219] – [224] | 16 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 20/21/22, 23/24, 25/26, 27/28, 29, 48 and 49 |
48 | 332 Canal Wharf, 14 Waterfront Walk, Birmingham, B1 1SR (approx value £250,000) - failed to disclose interest in this asset |
Proven [276] – [281] | 18 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentences for breaches 20/21/22, 23/24, 25/26, 27/28, 29, 47 and 49 |
49 | Apartment 44, Temple House, 24 Temple Street, Birmingham, B2 5BG (approx value £120,000) – falsely stated that the asset is solely owned by his wife |
Proven [173] – [180] | 16 months' imprisonment to run concurrently with sentences for breaches 20/21/22, 23/24, 25/26, 27/28, 29, 47 and 48 |
50 |
Receivable in respect of loan to Entatech in the sum of £2,311,730 – falsely stated that this receivable was owned by Shu Hu Chang |
Proven [225] – [233] | 6 months' imprisonment |
51 | Failure to provide documents which the Liquidators have reasonably requested to substantiate his asset disclosure. |
Taken into account in sentencing for other breaches [300] | |
52 | Failure to disclose his interest in a loan to Andrew Tsai and Pui Lai Tsai in the sum of £210,000 |
No finding [299] | n/a |