BOC Hong Kong's Cheung Misled Uneducated Buyers on Minibonds, Court Told
BOC Hong Kong's Cheung Misled Uneducated Buyers on Minibonds, Court Told
By Debra Mao - Nov 25, 2010 5:01 PM GMT+0800
inShare.More
Business ExchangeBuzz up!DiggPrint Email .BOC Hong Kong (Holdings) Ltd. manager Cheung Kwai-kwai told a customer who bought structured products linked to Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. that he would get back the principal, a prosecutor said.
Cheung sold the products, which lost their value after Lehman’s 2008 bankruptcy, to retirees and investors who hadn’t completed primary school, Jonathan Man told Hong Kong’s District Court on the first day of Cheung’s trial today.
The 47-year-old banker had pleaded not guilty to nine counts of fraudulently or recklessly inducing others to invest a total of about $787,776 in the securities between 2005 and 2008. The Hong Kong unit of Bank of China Ltd. was the biggest seller of so-called Lehman minibonds, $1.8 billion of which were bought by retail investors in Hong Kong since 2003, according to the Hong Kong Monetary Authority.
Cheung told Fong Kwuk-tong, a part-time security guard, the minibonds were a "very secure" investment and that he would "definitely receive" the principal amount back in six-and-a-half years, said Man, a lawyer for the prosecution.
Cheung’s lawyer Peter Duncan declined to comment.
BOC Hong Kong didn’t respond to a request for comment today. It was one of 16 banks that agreed to a settlement to buy back the products for at least 60 cents on the dollar. The bank said in April that Cheung and fellow employee Tai Ching had been placed on compulsory leave, and that the matter would not have a material impact on its operations.
Minibond Documents
Prosecution witness Siu So-chun, a 62-year-old retiree who couldn’t read all the words on the standard oath to be recited by witnesses before giving testimony, said she couldn’t remember whether Cheung had shown her any documents when she bought the minibonds.
“She probably showed me something, but I said ‘I don’t need to look at that because I trust you,’” Siu testified. “I have known her for so many years.”
Tai’s trial on the same charge is scheduled to begin on March 11.
Richard Turnbull, a prosecutor for the Department of Justice, said a conviction would carry a maximum fine of HK$1 million ($128,882) and seven years imprisonment.
The case is Hong Kong SAR v. Cheung Kwai Kwai, DCCC526/2010, in Hong Kong District Court.
Second witness is Madam Lee aged 59.
To contact the reporter on this story: Debra Mao in Hong Kong dmao5@bloomberg.net
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Douglas Wong in Hong Kong at dwong19@bloomberg.net
.
5 則留言:
Dirty tactic of Duncan :
1. Try to mislead madam Lee about checks of risk level in the sale forms as most of the check list were done by banker as witness was telling the truth by saying in police station that these checks were done by the banker, while in court she said that she remember the form had no ticks on risk form. That common tactic of BOCHK officials to put the check of high risk after their customers signed these forms as I found out in meeting with Lehman victimsa month ago. While in court Duncan is forcing and confusing the old witness to say she herself is telling the lies. That the worst dirty trick I have seen in court.
I myself guess the BOCHK officials usually put these tick of high risk box during photocopy operation hiding from the victims.
Duncan is trying to use the timeline of signing time and the discovering bankers frauds time and the wording to confuse old witness.
2. The banker was telling the victim the lies that Minibonds consisted of seven companies bonds, while the truth is Minibonds did not consist of these seven companies bonds, but linked to these seven companies. Everybody in court seems to mix up these informations. Duncan is using the dirty trick of no witness would remember what these seven companies names or mixed up with these seven companies names to force the witness to say she is telling the lies. What a dirty sob this lawyer is doing to confuse witness.
The main point here is that banker that told the victim that these minibonds were safe and secure already meant low risk, and these minibonds consist of seven companies bonds were already crimes under misselling frauds. What the banker was hiding the true nature of these high risk minibonds, not giving propectus to customer and hiding the risk level form that must be explained to customer and checking of these form on the first time when the customer first bought these minibonds are the most important of the misselling frauds of the banker and Duncan tries to ignore these issue that dealt with the true crimes.
3. In the court, it also proves that all public banks that sold Minibonds, including BOCHK is using their database of clients datas to search for witness former occupations, business transation, calls their customer friends similar to criminal investigation of HK police to the witness, and interchange customers datas with other banks to perform dirty underhand tactics to the witness as we know for time since Oct 2008.
發佈留言
訂閱 發佈留言 [Atom]
<< 首頁