HONG KONG: Accusations of repeated lies given in sworn testimony, even of lying through his teeth were hurled at sometime fung shui instructor and businessman Tony Chan, 49, in Court of First Instance yesterday.

Denis Chang, counsel for Chinachem foundation which is locked in a bitter legal battle with Chan over the estate of the late tycoon Nina Wang, also accused Chan of authoring the 2006 will which he has advanced in his claim as Wang's sole heir.

Counsel for Chinachem, during the charity's closing submission in the probate action before Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon, cited what he called, "pages and pages of lies" Chan had told the court.

"It is so long to list all the untruths and lies that were told," said Chang.

He added that the lies were deliberate and blatant, self-serving, unbelievable and self-contradictory.

Another barrister appearing on behalf of the charitable organization, Benjamin Yu, said Chan admitted he knew little of fung shui, but that the court had heard testimony that Chan had dug fung shui holes and asked disgraced former legislator Gilbert Leung to burn real bank notes in what Chan purported to be a fung shui ritual to improve Leung's fortunes.

Yu told the court that Chan once claimed that his father's book Celestial Atlas Arrangement was burned by Wang, but later altered his testimony, under repeated cross examination, saying he did not know whether Wang had burned his book but was suspicious that she had done so.

"Everything is a lie," he asserted.

Chang said the lies were reckless, referring to evidence that Chan had told the court he had put jade with four Chinese characters into a fung shui hole, but that the jades found in the hole were imprinted with symbols instead of characters.

Chan represented himself in court as Wang's secret lover in an affair extending over 15 years until Wang's death in 2007. But Chang charged that Chan's claims of a relationship conducted in secrecy and only at night, lacked "basic integrity and quality".

"It is filled by money," he said.

Photos presented by Chan to the court were taken between 1993 and 1998. Audio recordings presented by Chan were made between 1996 and 1997. Videos of the two together were taken in 1993.

There was no material in support of Chan's carrying on a relationship with Wang during the late stage of her life, Chang said.

He told the court that Chan did not disclose to Wang his luxurious lifestyle, including the purchase of a private jet. Wang, he observed, was noted for her frugality.

Chan had testified in court that he was surprised to learn of Wang's intention to leave him all of her estate. Chang presented that statement as evidence that Wang had never promised Chan that he could receive her entire estate, "let alone grooming him up as the chairman of the Chinachem empire," Chang said.

Chang asserted that the 2006 will, upon which Chan based his claim, was forged and not written by Wang. He added that there was circumstantial evidence that the will was written by Chan himself.

"He had the opportunity and motive to do it," Chang said.

Chang also said it would have been unnecessary for Wang to give Chan HK$688 million on three different occasions if it had been her intention to leave him her entire estate. Chang argued that if Wang had any intention to name Chan as her beneficiary, she would have asked that her official will of 2002 be revoked and would have made copies of the 2006 will.

Leaving all of her estate to Chan for his personal use was also contradictory to Wang's expressed wishes, publicly reported earlier that the proceeds of her estate should be used to support charitable works, Chang said.

Chang told the court that the attesting witness to the 2006 will, Winfield Wong, had queried whether the document was a partial will, at the time the document was signed. Wang replied affirmatively that it was a partial will. Wang would not have said yes and would have asked for further information if she believed the 2006 will replaced her previous will, thus leaving her entire estate to Chan.

Justice Lam challenged Chang asking what would be the circumstances if the court did not accept Chan's evidence, but at the same time, did not accept that the 2006 will was forged.

Chang replied that even if there were such findings, Chan still had not proved that Wang had the knowledge of the content nor given her approval of the 2006 will.

Justice Lam reserved judgment. The ruling is expected to be delivered by the end of this year, or early next year.

(HK Edition 09/23/2009 page1)