HONG KONG: A solicitor who witnessed Nina Wang's signature on a 2006 document was accused Friday of attempting to thwart the late tycoon's will because of his own close business ties to the opposing claimant to the estate, the Chinachem Charitable Foundation.

The charge was leveled by Ian Mill, counsel for fung shui expert Tony Chan, during cross examination of solicitor Winfield Wong.

Wong has told the court he witnessed Nina Wang's signature October 16th, 2006 to a document bequeathing more than HK$10 million to someone whose surname was Chan. Wong has testified however that the document did not contain the legal language of an authorized last will and testament and thus was only a partial will.

Wong stood by his denial that the disputed will purporting to name Chan as sole beneficiary was not the document he signed.

On the fifth day of the probate trial, Mill read Wong's affidavit, prepared by Ramesh Sujanani in April 2007. Sujanani was the barrister who represented Nina Wang in her own legal battle with her father-in-law over control of the estate left by Teddy Wang.

Sujanani prepared the statement on April 7, 2007. Wong signed it. The affidavit was amended on April 13 or 14, the court heard.

The amended statement, which Wong did not sign and approve, states that "Having read Document A (the will possessed by Chan), I believe it is probably the document I witnessed late 2006 at the presence of Nina Wang and (the other attesting witness) Ng Shung-mo".

It goes on to say that "Document A deals with the residue of Wang's fortune. This is consistent with the document I witnessed in late 2006" and "I believe it is my signature, ID card number, and name written in capital letters on the will."

Wong told the court he felt uncomfortable about some "comments and speculations added in the amendment, but he did not ask Sujanani to correct it because he thought the statement made on April 7 was sufficient and he preferred explaining himself in court.

"I suggest what you mean by sufficient was that it was a sufficient attempt to help Chinachem inherit the fortune," Mill countered. Counsel for the fung shui master continued by probing the business relationship between Wong and Chinachem. On October 16, 2006 when the Chan will was signed, Winfield Wong was employed by Ford, Kwan & Co. Later he moved to Philip KH Wong, Kennedy YH Wong & Co.

Wong said Ford, Kwan & Co had business dealings with Chinachem. Wong was authorized by Chinachem to sign documents and he owned shares in companies owned by Chinachem.

Mill noted that in February, Chime, a company owned by Wang's estate, bought HK$120 million in stock from Hong Kong Resources, a company chaired by Kennedy Wong, the managing partner of the firm where Winfield Wong is currently employed.

"You were doing everything in your power to obstruct my client's claim to Nina's fortune, weren't you?" Mill demanded.

Chan's legal team also was unable to obtain original copies of documents bearing Wong's signature.

"Your lack of cooperation to my side reflects your antipathy for our client," Mill said.

Mill asked him if he had been under tremendous pressure to say the document he witnessed in 2006 was a different document from the purported will in Chan's possession.

"I think psychologically there must be pressure, but I am simply saying in court what I remember," Wong answered. Wong denied he has been affected by his business relationship with Chinachem.

Mill will continue questioning Wong on Monday.

(HK Edition 05/16/2009 page1)