If you prove money trail from your pocket you can call the shots lah
Not exactly, as there will be many factors for the presiding Judge to consider in order to make a decision. In a Democratic nation or even in a dictatorship where one seeks to preserve one's rule by the presumption of equal justice for all, the Judiciary DOES not make laws, but only INTERPRETE laws as legislated.
Over NON-POLITICAL or National security issues where grey areas exist in laws such as property, the judiciary will always uphold property RIGHTS - legal ownership- outright, and the law is that one whom has the title deeds registered under one' s name, is the LEGAL owner, to enjoy full rights to the property he owns within the scope of the law, unless where there is 'hold in trust' separate NECESSARY legal agreement on the property.
As far as this case is concerned, so called 'legal experts' whom claimed receipt proofs of money used from one's account is entitled to ownership, is akin to telling one CAN jump across a canal. Any fool can do so, but reaching the other side safely is another issue, as one whom is weak or the canal is beyond 2 metres, one would fall & get wet achieving nothing. Thus beware of 'legal advice', as there are professionals & charlatans as well.
In the case of the late Mdm Choi, it was reported that she had proof of such 'held in trust' claims based upon the cash - HK$ 70 MILLION paid upfront for the purchase of the contested property. However, there was NO such 'held in trust' document, only receipts.
1. She was not some uneducated old senile grandmother whom had been cheated over the property purchase, that a judge would take into consideration. She was young, educated, around the age of mid 20s, a socialite that travelled across continents, broke language barriers, had friends from all diverse international background. It would be impossible that she would not know what is ' held in trust' & the legal documents required.
2. Furthermore, she allowed her ex husband family to LIVE in the property for years for free with no tenancy agreement, that she claimed to had bought for herself. It was certainly not an investment for personal use, more so the lack of any presumed ' held in trust' document or evidence.
3. Equally, under such circumstances, her ex-husband family can claimed it was a GIFT, to uplift the lives of them. Can someone whom had given thousands of dollars to another over years, even with bank statement evidence, claimed back that such funds were given & supposed 'held in trust'? The Court would throw out such cases & deem such as frivolous & wasting Court's time.
Thus, there was no motive that her ex-husband family want her to disappear, as they have the fullest right to the property. & would win in any Court battle.
It is those whom stand to lose HK$70 Million dollars that would consider actions to be taken. WHERE did the HK$70 MILLION dollars came from? Mdm Choi was not a grade A International model & even such do not make that much funds on the catwalk or advertisements alone. It was only when she 'married' into the wealthy Tam family that she had access to UNLIMITED funds, to live life far more than a fairy tale princess.
Most Human would mourn over such huge fund losses, but most whom are civilized would get over it & moved on over time to rebuild. But for the unevolved where money is everything, more so the rich & powerful whom took great risks in life to achieve such unimaginable wealth, will not get over it, as they got rich by savings & not by throwing precious money away, and instead, how to get it back, by themselves or by the best brains or brawns from others, often thru elaborate plans, the way they work, plan & achieve their goals in life.
As the property was in another's name, & the other person has no wish to relinquish that legal right, the barbaric way is thru violence - to kill 2 birds with one stone in phases.
Phase 1:- Build up a beautiful story of everyone involved over time thru all forms of media, to lull them into a trap of deciding who are the kind ones & whom are the ungrateful, to sway public & even judge's opinions.
Phase 2:-Set up means to kill Mdm Choi, & then FRAME the Kwong family as the murderers, typical of ancient China form of punishment where the entire family-men, women & kids are slaughtered, to prevent vengeance & lesson for others to know & not mess with the bullies.
Phase 3:- with the legal owner of the property - the Kwong family all sentenced to death for murder, none will inherit the contested property. Then, the mother of Mdm Choi, will be supported by the best of lawyers to fight the right to the property thru ' held in trust' theory supported by receipts. As the Kwong family are either dead or held in prison, they would have no access to funds to fight a strong legal battle, more so when the judiciary are CONVINCED of the dastardly deeds & gruesome slaughter of a Human, pinned on them thru trump up charges.
Phase 4:- Once Mdm Choi's mother won the case, it will be far easier for her to sell the property as she alone decides - to sell & return the huge amount of millions to the rightful payer for the property, or to face death.