没事找事系列： 20070428/加拿大华裔夫妇“神秘暴富”可能入狱（转帖）
20070428/加拿大华裔夫妇“神秘暴富”可能入狱
拒还债申请破产 住豪宅藐视法庭
星报通讯社多伦多电/蒋杰(Jay Chiang 音译)与蒋克丽丝蒂娜(Christina Chiang音译)可能因神秘暴富而入狱。
这对烈治文山市(Richmond Hill)夫妇无法解释，他们甚至在申请破产情况之下，仍然拥有10,000平方尺豪宅与两部豪华轿车。蒋氏夫妇定于下周三提堂，出席判刑聆讯。
虽然这在民事案件中极其罕见，蒋氏夫妇有可能被安省法庭判刑而锒铛入狱。
蒋氏传奇追朔至90年代
蒋氏传奇可以追朔至90年代，遍及两大洲5个国家。根据安省高等法院的资料，蒋氏夫妇利用各种假名，声称与华人黑帮发生冲突，通过向海外洗钱，隐藏债权人数以百万元计的金钱。法官拉赫丝(Joan L. Lax)4月17日的判决，让人们略见一斑，债务人若拒绝偿还债务，民事法庭如何无能为力。
拉赫丝在长达35页的判决书中指出，本案的大部分原告可能很早就放弃了争取。许多债权人得出结论，洗至远东的金钱永远无法追回。
2月份的聆讯中，审理这对夫妇是否洗清早前藐视法庭的罪名。
自加利幅尼亚州一间法庭下令蒋杰与其兄弟支付Korea Data Systems 970万元以来，时间已经过去近10年。
蒋氏兄弟于90年代初期，创办了一间名为Aamazing Technologies Inc.的公司，销售电脑设备。他们白手起家，不到5年时间，公司销售额达到4,000万元。
蒋氏兄弟向诸如Korea Data之类的供应商赖账，否则，Aamazing公司可以成为创业成功的教科书榜样。
拒披露巨款去向
同一年，加州法庭下令蒋杰与Korea Data其他债权人解决债务纠纷，但蒋杰在安省宣布破产，欠下1,960万元巨额债务。
Korea Data拒绝接受这个成功的企业家突然之间破产。安省破产信托代表债权人向法庭提出诉讼，于2000年获颁法庭指令，冻结蒋杰、蒋妻及其父母在全球的资产。
2003年，蒋氏夫妇被裁定，6项藐视法庭指令罪名成立。法官裁定，蒋氏夫妇拒绝出示身份证明，从账户上提取大额款项，转至其父母户头上，拒绝披露800万美元至1,000万美元的去向。
法官不接受重新做人说法
在2月份的法庭聆讯中，蒋氏夫妇声称自2003年被裁定藐视法庭罪名成立之后已经洗心革面，重新做人。他们说，已经改变作假证及违法法庭指令的作法。
然而，法官拉赫丝并不接受这对所谓的新人。她裁定，被告长期以来不诚实，善于伪装。
法庭下令蒋氏夫妇提供家庭成员所拥有资产的明细，但他们没有照做。蒋氏夫妇辩称，家庭成员不会合作。法庭指出，蒋氏夫妇与父母关系亲密，而且蒋氏夫妇控制着家庭成员的银行账户。
至于蒋氏夫妇为何至今不服从法庭指令，拉赫丝指出，可能是因为他们相信，拒不服从不会受到惩罚。或者是，与继续隐瞒数以百万元计的财富相比，坐监牢也许是必须付出的轻微代价。
下周三的判刑将确定，蒋氏夫妇必须为违抗法庭指令将受到怎样惩罚。
显然，蒋氏夫妇试图在美国获得长期居留的身份。法官已经注意到他们可能想逃脱惩罚，于是保持警惕。法官表示，有必要下令蒋氏夫妇交出护照。
在民事法庭，判处被告刑期是不寻常的作法。
这是强迫被告服从法律的最后手段。
自2003年藐视法庭罪名成立以来，蒋氏夫妇曾经有许多纠正错误的机会。但他们我行我素，置若罔闻。律师行Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLp合伙人考夫曼(Aubrey Kauffman)指出，如果在狄更斯(Dickens)时代，蒋氏夫妇早就被投入债务人监狱。
利用假身份转移资产
根据法庭裁决，发现从一开始便有不寻常的金钱转账。
例如，从资产冻结的那一天开始，蒋妻飞往新加坡，安排电汇575,000元至其母亲在台湾银行(Bank of Taiwan)的户口上。下个月，这笔款项又转至国泰世华银行(United World of Chinese Commercial Bank)其母亲账户上。
通过这类异乎寻常的资产转帐，一家资产数以百万元计算的电讯企业便在一夜之间消失了。这家公司的总部设在蒋氏夫妇烈治文山市的家中，在资产冻结之前的两年内，该公司的销售额便创下1,500万元至2,000万元。
但是，这家消失的电讯公司资产迅速转至接近蒋杰及蒋妻的人士名下。
蒋杰在向法庭解释其夫妇财富的去向时声称，在华人黑帮的胁迫之下，从其香港银行账户上提取720,000美元现金，以还赌债。
直至2005年，这则故事才浮现。早在2001年与2003年，当法庭讯问失踪金钱的去向时，蒋氏夫妇则有另外的种种解释。
蒋氏夫妇利用自己及家庭成员的假身份巧妙地转移了资产。
例如，蒋妻的化名包括：Suh Mei Tasi、Christian Chiang、Suh Mei Tsai、Christina Suh Mei Tsai、Suh Mei Tasi Chiang、Christina Su-Mei Chiang及Su-Mei Chiang。蒋杰的名字还包括：Jay Tien Chiang与Tienchieh Chiang。
法官拉赫丝在裁决书中指出，债务人利用这种方式逃避债务。
夫妇无收入 开靓车 两儿读名校
法庭对蒋氏夫妇下达特别指令，否则面临入狱下场。然而，这对夫妇继续享受着纸醉金迷的生活之中。
他们对财富的嗜好包括10,000平方尺的豪宅，于15年之前购置时价值超过100万加元。豪宅拥有3车房，蒋杰的平治房车(Mercede)S500V于2000年价值125,000元；蒋妻则拥有2006年款凌志越野车(Lexus SUV)。
蒋氏夫妇的两个儿子均入读名校上加拿大学院(Upper Canada College)，他们的学费便总共大约50,000元。
但蒋氏夫妇口口声声没有收入来源或职业。
A case of wealthy contempt
Judge in civil action could impose an unusual jail sentence on an outwardly rich couple who claim they are bankrupt
Apr 28, 2007 04:30 AM
Sharda Prashad
Business Reporter
Jay and Christina Chiang could go to jail for being mysteriously rich.
The Richmond Hill couple is scheduled to appear at a sentencing hearing on Wednesday, after failing to explain how they maintain a 10,000-square-foot home and two luxury cars, even though they claim to be bankrupt.
Although it’s extremely rare in civil action, the Chiangs could leave an Ontario courtroom with a jail sentence.
The Chiang saga stretches back to the early 1990s, over five countries and two continents. The pair used numerous aliases, allegedly had a run-in with the Chinese mob and hid millions of dollars from creditors by moving money overseas, according to the Superior Court of Justice judge who will pass sentence on them. The April 17 judgment by Justice Joan L. Lax offers a glimpse into how little power the civil courts have to recover money from a debtor who refuses to pay.
“Most plaintiffs in this case would have given up long ago,” Lax wrote in her 35-page judgment. “Most would have concluded that money wired to the Far East is uncollectible; that hollow judgments are expensive wallpaper.”
The sentencing on Wednesday follows a trial in February that weighed whether the couple had purged their earlier contempt of court.
Nearly a decade has passed since a California court ordered Jay and his brother to pay Korea Data Systems $9.7 million.
The brothers had started a business, Aamazing Technologies Inc., to sell computer equipment in the early 1990s. They took the business from nothing to $40 million in sales in less than five years.
Aamazing could have been a textbook example of a successful start-up, except the siblings didn’t bother to pay suppliers, such as Korea Data.
The same year Jay was ordered by the California court to settle his debt with Korea Data and others, he declared bankruptcy in Ontario, owing $19.6 million.
Korea Data refused to accept the successful entrepreneur was suddenly penniless. On behalf of creditors, the Ontario trustee in bankruptcy sought and received a court order in 2000 to freeze the worldwide assets of Jay, Christina and their parents.
From the start, unusual money transfers were uncovered, according to the judge’s ruling.
The day the asset freeze began, for example, Christina flew to Singapore and arranged for the wire transfer of $575,000 to her mother’s bank account at the Bank of Taiwan. The next month, the money was transferred to her mother’s account with United World of Chinese Commercial Bank.
What Lax calls the most egregious instance of asset transfer is the overnight disappearance of a multi-million-dollar telecom business. The company, headquartered at the couple’s Richmond Hill home, generated between $15 million and $20 million of sales in the two years prior to the asset freeze.
But the assets of the vanished telecom were suddenly transferred to people close to Jay and Christina, according to the judge’s ruling.
In one of the most bizarre explanations of what happened to the couple’s wealth, Jay told the courts he was forced by the Chinese mafia to withdraw $720,000 (U.S.) in cash from his Hong Kong bank account to settle a gambling debt.
That story didn’t surface until 2005. Earlier, in 2001 and 2003 when the courts asked about the missing money, he had other explanations.
The judgment is filled with other cases in which Jay and Christina skillfully hid their assets through false identities belonging to them or family members.
Christina, for example, is also known as Suh Mei Tasi, Christian Chiang, Suh Mei Tsai, Christina Suh Mei Tsai, Suh Mei Tasi Chiang, Christina Su-Mei Chiang and Su-Mei Chiang. Jay is also known as Jay Tien Chiang and Tienchieh Chiang.
“This case puts in issue the capacity of the court to enforce its orders where a judgment debtor with substantial financial means decides to avoid his obligations,” Lax wrote.
In 2003, the Chiangs were found guilty of contempt of court involving six court orders. The judge found they had refused to produce documents that were partly uncovered during a court-sanctioned search of their home, made withdrawals of large sums of money from their accounts and transfers to accounts of their parents, and refused to divulge or claimed no knowledge of the whereabouts of between $8 million and $10 million (U.S.).
The couple was given specific instructions on how to fix the situation, or face a jail-term. When the courts did not enforce the threat of a jail-term, Jay and Christina continued to indulge in the high life.
Evidence of their penchant for luxury included their 10,000-square-foot home, valued at more than $1 million (Canadian) when they bought it 15 years ago. The home is like others in the tony Richmond Hill neighbourhood – it’ s massive, with a three-car garage chock full of luxury cars. Jay has a Mercedes S500V, which cost $125,000 in 2000; Christina a 2006 Lexus SUV.
The Chiangs also spare no expense for their two sons. The boys attend Upper Canada College, where their tuition costs alone total about $50,000.
The Chiangs claim to have no resources or jobs.
In a February trial, Jay and Christina claimed to have turned over a new leaf after they were found guilty of contempt in 2003. They said they had changed their ways in terms of lying under oath and not complying with court orders.
But Lax was reluctant to accept the new and improved Jay and Christina. “Their record of dishonesty and concealment continued long after the contempt order and persisted at this trial,” she wrote in her judgment.
The couple had been ordered to provide detailed documentation of all assets held by their family members, but they did not. The Chiangs argued their family wouldn’t co-operate. But the Chiangs had a loving relationship with their parents and it was Jay and Christina who controlled their bank accounts, the judgment countered.
As for why the Chiangs hadn’t complied with orders to date, Lax noted it could be because they believed there was no penalty for not complying. Or perhaps a jail term was “a modest price to be paid for being able to continue to hide millions of dollar,” she wrote.
The sentencing on Wednesday will determine what penalty Jay and Christina will have to bear for their contempt of court.
If Jay and Christina are thinking of skipping out – they are apparently seeking permanent residency status in the United States – the judge has already taken a precaution. “In view of their long record of deceit, their repeated contempt of orders of this court and the risk that they will leave this jurisdiction, I am of the view that it is both reasonable and necessary to require Mr. and Mrs. Chiang to surrender their passports.”
In the civil court, such as the one where Jay and Christina’s sentencing will occur, a punishment of jail is unusual.
It’s used as a last resort to get people to comply with the law.
Jay and Christina have been given many chances to rectify their situation since they were first found in contempt in 2003.
“There are situations when someone is just acting in such disregard, there’s no sanction left to do except to commit them to jail,” said Aubrey Kauffman, a partner at law firm Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP.
If the Chiangs lived in another era, they would already be in jail, he said. “In Dickens’s time if you didn’t pay your debt, you’d be put in debtor’s prison.”
Lax ruled that a trustee acting on behalf of Korea Data had no other recourse than to request the Chiangs be held in contempt, and punished. “A contempt hearing is often a last resort for a litigant, but in the face of shameless dishonesty and intransigent refusals to obey the rule of law, it is, regrettably, the only remedy that remains.”
A phone call to the lawyer for the Chiangs was not returned.
http://www.thestar.com/article/208217
关键字: none
