Former property agent gets three years for perversion over $14m property transaction
2006-8-4
A former property agent, charged by the ICAC, was today (Friday) sentenced to three years' imprisonment at the District Court for conspiring with an occupant of a wooden hut to pervert the course of public justice by making false affirmations in civil pro ceedings in order to frustrate a $14 million property transaction.
Chan Man-kwong, 44, was earlier found guilty of four offences –'96 one of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, two of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the co-defendant to commit perjury, and one of forgery.
Co-defendant Sin Yin-yat, 55, who pleaded guilty to his role in the scam and later gave evidence in the trial against Chan, was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended for two years.
In sentencing, Deputy Judge Ernest Lin reprimanded Chan for committing the serious offences, which, if went unpunished, might jeopardize the judicial system.
The case arose from a corruption complaint. Subsequent ICAC enquiries revealed the above offences.
The court heard that in February 1998, Charmfar Limited (Charmfar) signed a provisional agreement with a vendor to purchase a property in Kowloon City Road, Tokwawan at $14 million.
Charmfar was responsible for clearing the illegal structures on the rooftop of the property, which were then occupied by several persons.
Chan, then a property agent, acted as a negotiator representing Charmfar to repossess the rooftop from the occupants.
The court heard that Sin Yin-yat was one of the rooftop occupants at the Tokwawan property. After negotiations, Sin agreed to move out at a compensation of $260,000.
On August 4, 1998, Chan issued to Sin a cheque for $60,000, being an initial payment of the compensation.
Due to the downfall of the property market, Charmfar requested the vendor to postpone the completion date of the transaction. But the request was turned down by the vendor.
On September 1, 1998, Sin accepted from Chan $200,000, being the balance of the compensation. Thereafter, Chan procured Sin to initiate a civil claim of adverse possession against the vendor in order to frustrate the transaction.
In February 1999, to frustrate the transaction, Charmfar filed a separate civil claim against the vendor with the High Court on the ground of Sin's adverse possession claim.
The court heard that between 1998 and 2003, Chan had twice taken Sin to solicitors firms to swear false affirmations, claiming that he had remained in the rooftop of the building uninterruptedly and continuously, and was still occupying the rooftop; and t hat he had never received any compensation from Charmfar or its agents.
In support of Sin's claim, Chan and Sin made a false sale and purchase memorandum in respect of the rooftop hut and filed it to the High Court.
In June 2003, despite Chan's repeated requests, Sin wished to discontinue the adverse possession claim proceedings.
To appease Sin, Chan, on behalf of Charmfar, offered to pay him $10,000 cash as “travelling expenses”, as well as $200,000 if the lawsuit was successful; or $100,000 if otherwise.
The civil litigation continued until August 2004, when the vendor eventually agreed to sell the property at only $8.3 million to Charmfar. As part of the deal, the two civil proceedings discontinued, the court was told.
The case was today represented by Senior Government Counsel Sharman Lam, assisted by ICAC officer Oyan Cheung.
Chan Man-kwong, 44, was earlier found guilty of four offences –'96 one of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice, two of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the co-defendant to commit perjury, and one of forgery.
Co-defendant Sin Yin-yat, 55, who pleaded guilty to his role in the scam and later gave evidence in the trial against Chan, was sentenced to one year's imprisonment, suspended for two years.
In sentencing, Deputy Judge Ernest Lin reprimanded Chan for committing the serious offences, which, if went unpunished, might jeopardize the judicial system.
The case arose from a corruption complaint. Subsequent ICAC enquiries revealed the above offences.
The court heard that in February 1998, Charmfar Limited (Charmfar) signed a provisional agreement with a vendor to purchase a property in Kowloon City Road, Tokwawan at $14 million.
Charmfar was responsible for clearing the illegal structures on the rooftop of the property, which were then occupied by several persons.
Chan, then a property agent, acted as a negotiator representing Charmfar to repossess the rooftop from the occupants.
The court heard that Sin Yin-yat was one of the rooftop occupants at the Tokwawan property. After negotiations, Sin agreed to move out at a compensation of $260,000.
On August 4, 1998, Chan issued to Sin a cheque for $60,000, being an initial payment of the compensation.
Due to the downfall of the property market, Charmfar requested the vendor to postpone the completion date of the transaction. But the request was turned down by the vendor.
On September 1, 1998, Sin accepted from Chan $200,000, being the balance of the compensation. Thereafter, Chan procured Sin to initiate a civil claim of adverse possession against the vendor in order to frustrate the transaction.
In February 1999, to frustrate the transaction, Charmfar filed a separate civil claim against the vendor with the High Court on the ground of Sin's adverse possession claim.
The court heard that between 1998 and 2003, Chan had twice taken Sin to solicitors firms to swear false affirmations, claiming that he had remained in the rooftop of the building uninterruptedly and continuously, and was still occupying the rooftop; and t hat he had never received any compensation from Charmfar or its agents.
In support of Sin's claim, Chan and Sin made a false sale and purchase memorandum in respect of the rooftop hut and filed it to the High Court.
In June 2003, despite Chan's repeated requests, Sin wished to discontinue the adverse possession claim proceedings.
To appease Sin, Chan, on behalf of Charmfar, offered to pay him $10,000 cash as “travelling expenses”, as well as $200,000 if the lawsuit was successful; or $100,000 if otherwise.
The civil litigation continued until August 2004, when the vendor eventually agreed to sell the property at only $8.3 million to Charmfar. As part of the deal, the two civil proceedings discontinued, the court was told.
The case was today represented by Senior Government Counsel Sharman Lam, assisted by ICAC officer Oyan Cheung.