![\"The](\"https:\/\/cassette.sphdigital.com.sg\/image\/businesstimes\/287cac16cb257b8a49767d4999bad025f4a02df6d58a7fa9328e7d396c265e33?w=960&dpr=1&f=webp\")
<\/a><\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\nThe trust was signed in Hong Kong on Oct 26, 2010. Under its terms, AUT was appointed first protector, with her letters of wishes to carry the same weight as BKR\u2019s own, giving her effective influence over how the trust\u2019s assets were managed.<\/p>\n
BKR\u2019s son CBB (who later brought the complaint against Wong) and his elder sister NG, were named as excluded persons who could receive no benefit.<\/p>\n
Upon BKR\u2019s death, AUT would become the sole owner of B Ltd, the trust\u2019s principal beneficiary, and was in line to receive a S$10 million gift.<\/p>\n
A string of red flags<\/h2>\n
Within weeks of the trust being signed, BKR began issuing a series of contradictory instructions to her bankers at UBS over the transfer of her assets to DBS.<\/p>\n
The unusual activity prompted UBS\u2019 lawyers to write to BKR in late December 2010, expressing concern that her instructions \u201cmay not represent (BKR\u2019s) real or independent intentions\u201d. Wong received a full copy of that letter.<\/p>\n
The High Court found that Wong had reason to question BKR\u2019s mental capacity well before this point. BKR had told the lawyer that she was \u201cvery forgetful\u201d and susceptible to pressure from family members, and Wong had acknowledged during cross-examination that she might have signed documents she did not mean to.<\/p>\n
The court also took issue with how Wong handled BKR\u2019s medical assessment. BKR was brought to see two doctors on Oct 25 and 26 \u2013 the day before and the very day of the trust signing \u2013 with AUT present at both visits.<\/p>\n
Wong relied on verbal assurances from both doctors before their written reports were issued, and had not furnished them with material information including the full implications of the trust or BKR\u2019s susceptibility to influence.<\/p>\n
He also did not ask for existing medical records, which included earlier neuropsychological assessments from 2005 and 2010 that showed BKR had significant memory impairment and impaired reasoning.<\/p>\n
The court further found that Wong had acted for both BKR and AUT simultaneously without disclosing the conflict to either, or advising AUT to seek her own lawyer.<\/p>\n
He had also drafted a strongly worded letter \u2013 which BKR was asked to copy by hand to make it appear as her own words \u2013 demanding that her two other children leave her alone.<\/p>\n
Disobeyed orders<\/h2>\n
The court also found that Wong disobeyed court orders after BKR was formally declared mentally incapacitated.<\/p>\n
In December 2012, a senior district judge found BKR unable to make decisions for herself, and appointed her sisters as joint deputies to act on her behalf.<\/p>\n
Despite this, Wong continued to advise BKR on her appeal, reviewed the judgment with her, and briefed her on what he called \u201csignificant flaws\u201d in the ruling.<\/p>\n
He also drafted a new will disinheriting all three of her children, and refused the joint deputies\u2019 requests for his bills and trust documents, saying BKR had not waived legal privilege.<\/p>\n
The High Court found these actions to be in clear breach of the court\u2019s orders. The Court of Three Judges will now determine what sanction, if any, to impose on Wong.<\/p>\n
\n
\n
Decoding Asia newsletter: your guide to navigating Asia in a new global order. Sign up here to get Decoding Asia newsletter.<\/span> Delivered to your inbox. Free.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Read Full Article At Source <\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"High Court says William Wong failed to protect elderly client who was under her daughter\u2019s undue influence [SINGAPORE] A lawyer is headed to the country\u2019s…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":40339,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fifu_image_url":"","fifu_image_alt":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2611],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-40338","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-buzz-headlines","wpcat-2611-id"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40338","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=40338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/40338\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/40339"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=40338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=40338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sgbuzz.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=40338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}