Jeffrey Li, instructed by Withersworldwide represented the 1st Respondent-Husband.

At AR Trial, it was the Petitioner’s case that the 1st Respondent’s significant investments in crypto-currencies were reckless and wanton, for they are inter alianon-government” and “unregulated”, and ought to be added-back to the 1st Respondent’s balance sheet.  The Court disagreed and held that losses from these investments were not susceptible to be added back.

On the other hand, it was the 1st Respondent’s case inter alia that (1) the Petitioner’s dissipation of funds to her parents are susceptible to be added-back under s. 17 MPPO, and (2) apart from the s. 17 funds, there are other funds which are liable to be added-back to the Petitioner’s balance sheet.

On issue 1, after Jeffrey’s cross-examination of the Petitioner and her parents, the Petitioner conceded on the s. 17.  The added-back funds represented a significant portion of the Pot.

On issue 2, the Court held that whilst some of the funds were not susceptible to be added-back for they are not reckless and wanton expenditure, another significant sum had simply “gone missing”, and for which the Petitioner had no answer in cross-examination.  The Court held that such funds were to be added-back.

For Jeffrey’s profile, please click here.

For the judgement, please click here.