Court did not accept that investment in crypto-currencies are “reckless and wanton”; Petitioner-Wife conceded on s. 17 after cross-examination

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

At AR Trial, it was the Petitioner’s case that the 1^st Respondent’s significant investments in crypto-currencies were reckless and wanton, for they are inter alia “non-government” and “unregulated”, and ought to be added-back to the 1^st 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 1^st 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.