Shao v Xia
[2021] VCC 630
•19 May 2021
| IN THE COUNTY COURT OF VICTORIA AT Melbourne COMMERCIAL DIVISION | Revised Not Restricted Suitable for Publication |
Case No. CI-19-05400
| Yun Shao | Plaintiff |
| v | |
| Jin Fan Xia | Defendant |
---
JUDGE: | HER HONOUR JUDGE MARKS | |
WHERE HELD: | Melbourne | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 20, 21 and 22 January 2021 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 19 May 2021 | |
CASE MAY BE CITED AS: | Shao v Xia | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2021] VCC 630 | |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
---
CONTRACT – Whether agreement to pay $150,000 AUS in return for 732,000 RMB being deposited into nominated account – whether 732,000 RMB deposited into nominated account – whether $150,000 owing – turns on own facts.
---
APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the plaintiff | Mr Andrew Flower (Solicitor) | FCG Legal Pty |
| For the defendant | The defendant appeared in person |
Contents
Summary
The hearing
Facts
Issues
The agreement between Xia and Shao
The transfer of 732,000 RMB
$150,000 is owing
Illegality?
Conclusion
HER HONOUR:
Summary
1On 18 January 2019 Mr Yun Shao, a foreign exchange trader, and Mr Jin Fan Xia, a bitcoin trader, met at Melbourne’s Crown Casino. Shao agreed to arrange a currency exchange for Xia: in return for Xia giving him 150,000 Australian dollars in cash, Shao would transfer the same amount in Reminbi currency (agreed as being 732,000 RMB) into a Chinese bank account to be nominated by Xia.
2The next day, Xia and three other men met Shao at the Casino, moving to a quiet spot. A bag of cash containing $150,000 was handed over.
3Shao then showed Xia screenshots to establish that he had arranged the 732,000 RMB to be deposited into the nominated Chinese account. He then left with the bag of cash.
4In the meantime, Xia sought confirmation about the transfer from his associate in China. It did not come. Those accompanying Xia wanted the cash back, the police were called, and, reluctantly, Shao handed back the bag of cash.
5Shao then told Xia that their deal was now cancelled, but he could not reverse the transfer of RMB. He said he had returned the Australian dollars, and asked Xia to return ‘the Chinese yuan’ to him. Xia told him he did not have the amount on hand.
6After a brief negotiation, Xia wrote out an agreement which they both signed. (The agreement refers to a ‘loan’, and was described as an ‘IOU’ by Xia in evidence. I will refer to it as the written agreement in this ruling). It said:
I, Jin Fan Xia borrowed 150,000 Australian dollars from Yun Shao and promise before 19 March 2019 to repay all of the loan.
If I cannot pay the amount on time the parties promise to sign a new loan agreement with a new repayment date.
Borrower (signed) Jin Fan Xia …
7At the bottom, an image of Xia’s New Zealand drivers’ licence was reproduced.
8Shao sued in this case for $150,000. He said that in breach of their contract, Xia had not paid him the agreed $150,000.
9Xia denied that he owed anything to Shao. Xia raised two principal defences. First, he did not accept that 732,000 RMB was in fact transferred to the nominated Chinese account. Second, he said the terms of their agreement were different, that he was acting on behalf of a new client (a Mr Wang) when he arranged for Shao to exchange the money, and that he told Shao that.
10Having considered the evidence presented at trial, and the submissions made, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the agreement between Xia and Shao is as Shao claims, that 732,000 RMB was transferred to the nominated account, and that Xia owes $150,000 (and interest) to Shao.
11I explain why, below.
The hearing
12The hearing was conducted via Zoom. Only Shao and Xia gave evidence at the hearing. Neither is fluent in English. An interpreter interpreted for Xia during some of the hearing. Having initially asked for everything to be interpreted, Xia then said he only wanted interpretation at certain times. He often answered in English without requiring interpretation. The arrangement was made that if he required interpretation he would indicate it and the interpreter would then assist. At times I also asked the interpreter to interpret where I considered there might be some nuance being lost without translation.
13Shao had earlier tried to obtain summary judgment, and both Shao and Xia had sworn two affidavits in relation to that application. Those affidavits were in evidence. Otherwise, the documentary evidence was sparse. It included some transcripts of We-Chat messages (and other messages) between various people involved in the relevant transactions, and the disputed screenshots of messages which Shao said had been sent to him and which he said showed the RMB transfers.
14Much of Xia and Shao’s evidence as to what happened at their meetings on 18 and 19 January 2019 was not in dispute. However, they disagreed as to precisely what their agreement was about (the exchange of money), and as to the circumstances leading to the signing of the written agreement.
15I prefer Shao’s evidence of what occurred to Xia’s, because Shao was consistent in giving his evidence and it fitted with the surrounding circumstances. Xia, on the other hand, contradicted himself a number of times.
16In his first affidavit, sworn 28 February 2020, Xia swore that he agreed with Shao’s version of their agreement; in other words, that he agreed to pay Shao $150,000 in return for 732,000 RMB being deposited to his nominated account. But in his second affidavit, sworn 22 March 2020, Xia denied that he agreed to pay $150,000 on the deposit of RMB. In his first affidavit, Xia swore that Wang had accompanied him to the 19 January meeting. In his second affidavit – and at trial – he said it was Wang’s associate, named Josh, who had accompanied him. When cross-examined about these matters, he said variously that his former solicitor had written the first affidavit a long time ago, that the two documents were written at different dates, and that he remembered more details later.
Facts
17Xia gave evidence that he was at the relevant time a bitcoin trader, living in Melbourne, Australia. He earnt money by helping others buy and sell bitcoins (a form of digital currency). In January 2019, a potential new client – known to him only as ‘Mr Wang’ - contacted him via SMS wanting to buy $150,000 Australian dollars’ worth of bitcoins from him. Wang first had contact with Xia on the internet, and then by phone. They had never met. Mr Wang told him in an SMS that he had cash ‘ready to collect’ as a result of other bitcoin sales, and he wanted to buy more bitcoins. Xia said he was excited about the possibilities of doing business with Mr Wang.
18Xia then contacted one of his bitcoin suppliers in China, Na Li, who he had been doing business with for two or three years, wanting to obtain the bitcoins from her. Na Li told him that in order to sell such a large amount of bitcoins, she needed to be paid in RMB.
19So Xia asked his girlfriend to approach someone who worked at Crown Casino who she had introduced him to some months earlier, who he said was ‘well known for cash exchange’: Shao.
20On 18 January 2019, Xia and Shao met at the Mahogany Room at Crown Casino. Xia told Shao he had some Australian dollars, and needed RMB. Xia and Shao now have different versions of precisely what was said between them, and what they eventually agreed. I will come to my findings about that below. What was discussed in general terms was that in return for being given $150,000 cash, Shao would deposit the equivalent sum, said to be 732,000 RMB, into a bank account in China (details of which Xia was to provide later).
21Xia said Shao contacted him an hour or so later and said ‘ok’.
22The next day, 19 January, Wang texted Xia, suggesting:
$5k per coin let make it simple for our first trade
$150K
30 coins
Simple
Yeah?
23They agreed. Xia told Wang to come to the casino ‘to complete the bitcoin transaction’. His evidence was that he told him to come to the casino because Shao was usually at the casino and it was ‘a safe place’.
24Wang then told him over the phone that he was in Sydney, but his associate and partner, Josh, would bring the cash.
25That afternoon, Xia, Josh, and two other men accompanying Josh, met Shao at Crown Casino. Xia had not met Josh or the other men before. Neither had Shao.
26Josh had a bag with him, containing $150,000 cash.
27They all moved to a quieter part of the casino. Shao gave evidence that this was so they had a quiet place to do such a transaction, stating, ‘In an open area to do the money looks awkward’.
28Xia asked Josh to hand over the cash to Shao, and Josh did so.
29Xia contacted his bitcoin supplier, Na Li, again. Na Li then sent Xia a message on WeChat, giving him the Chinese bank account details of where to deposit the RMB. It was to be deposited into the account of someone Xia had never heard of before, called Zicen Cai.
30Xia gave those account details to Shao.
31Shao gave evidence that he then called Bi Chen – his wife’s cousin in China – who the day earlier he had asked to arrange to transfer some money for him. He now asked Bi Chen to please transfer 732,000 RMB to the account Xia had nominated. Bi Chen told him okay, he would do the transfer now.
32Shao said that Bi Chen then messaged him, via We-Chat, with two screen shots: one showing a 400,000 RMB transfer at 17.18 on 19 January, and one showing a 332,000 RMB transfer at 17.19 on 19 January (the two transfer screenshots). Shao gave evidence that the times shown on the two transfer screenshots are the times in China when the transfers occurred. The relevant transfer times in Melbourne were 8.18pm and 8.19pm.
33Whether these transfers of RMB actually took place is disputed (I deal with that below). But there is no argument that within about half an hour of being handed the cash, Shao told Xia that the transfers of the RMB had been made, showed Xia the two transfer screenshots on his phone, and sent a copy of the screenshots on We-Chat to Xia, who forwarded them on We-Chat to Na Li.
34They all then waited for half an hour or so. Xia wanted confirmation from Na Li that the transfers had occurred, and that the bitcoins he had arranged to purchase from her had been transferred or sent.
35Shao then left with the bag of cash.
36Over an hour later, Na Li had still not confirmed with Xia that she had been told the money had been deposited into Zisen Cai’s account or that the bitcoin had been transferred or sent.
37A screen shot of a conversation between Xia and Na Li was in evidence. Translated, their messages read:
Xia: Sis, can the Bitcoin be transferred/sent?
Na Li: He said did not receive.
Xia: Haven’t receive
Xia: ?
Xia: Can’t be It’s the same bank.
Na Li: Shouldn’t same bank be transferred instantly
Xia: Yes, same bank should be transferred instantly
Xia: Let me check from my side.
Na Li: Yes
38Xia said that he then kept sending voice messages to Na Li.
39She did not respond.
40According to Xia, Josh became anxious at this stage that Shao had taken the cash but no bitcoins had been sent, and he wanted the cash back. Xia gave evidence that he then phoned Shao, asking him to hand the money to ‘my client’, saying ‘My client hasn’t received the bitcoins’, and ‘Josh has not received the bitcoins. If you don’t bring the cash back they will report to the police.’
41Shao told Xia that what he should have done on his side had been done, that he could not reverse the bank transfer, and that he would not bring the money back.
42Josh called the police. Two or three police arrived, half an hour or so later. The police interviewed Xia, Josh and the other men, and Shao, separately. Eventually they told Shao to return the cash, and under that pressure he went back to his apartment, with the police, Josh and Josh’s colleagues. Shao handed the money over to Josh and one of the men accompanying him, in his apartment lobby. Shao gave evidence that because the police told him to hand it back, he thought maybe he was obliged to.
43Shao then went back to the Casino and found Xia. As mentioned at the outset of this judgment, they both signed the written agreement, which Xia wrote out. It stated:
I, Jin Fan Xia borrowed 150,000 Australian dollars from Yun Shao and promise before 19 March 2019 to repay all of the loan.
If I cannot pay the amount on time the parties promise to sign a new loan agreement with a new repayment date.
Borrower (signed) Jin Fan Xia …
44At the bottom an image of Xia’s New Zealand drivers’ licence was reproduced.
45Xia said that after this, he was not able to confirm if the RMB transfers had occurred, as he did not know Zicen Cai or any of his details, other than the account number Na Li had given him. He said that he was unable to contact Na Li after this to find out if the money Shao said had been transferred had arrived in the account. His last contact with her, he said in evidence, was either that day (19 January) or about a month later. She did not reply to him any further.
46Six months after the meetings at Crown Casino, on 16 July 2019, Xia messaged Shao over WeChat. The translation of those messages is:
Xia:Where is the account holder from. The person you used to transfer the money back then?
Shao: I need to check it is a person I know and familiar with.
Xia: Ok. Let me know when you find out.
Shao: the person is in China. A business person.
Xia: If I want to file a case I may need his information.
Shao:Send me the screen shots for the transfer, that will make it easier for me to check.
Xia: But can’t call it foreign exchange.
Shao: It was not foreign exchange anyhow.
There are only outgoings and no incoming.
How is that in exchange!
Shao: Send the screenshots to me.
Xia: I need to look for the screenshots, will send you later.
Shao: You can find it quickly if you go to chat history search.
Shao: I only remember his name is Zisen Cai.
Need to look for exactly who made the transfer.
Xia:[Two pictures of two mobile phones each displaying a screenshot are shown in the messages at this point]
Shao: Ok
Xia: If you find the transferor’s information send that to me.
Shao: Give me 5 minutes.
Shao:Do you need the information about the opening branch or you need the person’s name only.
Xia: I need both. Information of that person’s identity.
Shao: I will try my best.
Xia:If we eventually go together to file the case all information is required.
Send me as much details as possible.
Shao:Even though I know the person well, it is still his private information. I can only give you general info.
Shao: Account name: B Chen from Hefei of Anhui Province
Xia: Ok.
Shao: He is a businessman in Hefei.
Xia: Ok.
Xia: Will talk to her first, we will try to have a good plan first.
Shao: You can say it’s your friend.
Xia: Ok, thanks.
47Two days later, on 18 July 2019, there was one more message:
Shao: Bro, any news?
48As seen above, in the 16 July exchange, Shao asked Xia for a copy of the two transfer screenshots which Shao had first sent to Xia on 19 January. Shao said he had deleted his own copy by then. Xia sent them to him.
49Xia said that sometime later, he made enquiries with Chinese police to try to find out whether 732,000 RMB had been deposited in Zisen Cai’s account, but could not find out. He said he asked Shao to help with reporting it to the police in China, and that Shao would not help.
Issues
The agreement between Xia and Shao
50I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the agreement between Shao and Xia was as claimed by Shao. It was an agreement by Xia to pay $150,000 AUD to Shao in exchange for Shao arranging payment of 732,000 RMB into an account to be nominated by Xia.
51In Shao’s first affidavit, he had this to say about his agreement with Xia:
[2] On or around 19 January 2019 I had a conversation with Jin Fan Xia, the defendant in this proceeding. He told me that he required Chinese currency Renminbi ("RMB") to be paid into a bank account nominated by him. The amount to be paid would be the RMB equivalent of AUD$150,000.00. He said that, in return he would pay me $150,000.00 upon the deposit of the RMB. I agreed to this proposal.
52In his first affidavit, Xia agreed with what Shao said:
[3] As to paragraph 2 of Mr Shao's affidavit, I agree with the content of it and say further that I am a Bitcoin trader. To my best knowledge, Mr Shao carries a business of foreign exchange, Mr Shao and I had an arrangement that I would give him AUD $150,000.00 in cash and Mr Shao would transfer the equivalent of AUD $150,000.00 in Chinese Renminbi to a bank account nominated by me.
53Then, Xia wrote in his outline of submissions, filed just before trial:
I agree with the plaintiff into agreement to change Australian dollar 150,000.00 to Chinese RMB. I also told the plaintiff my customer Mr wang would take the cash come to him. the plaintiff also know the cash is belong to my customer Mr wang
54Xia gave evidence at trial of what was agreed with Shao. Initially, Xia did not say that he mentioned a client to Shao. Later, in cross- examination, he said that he mentioned to Shao (at that stage) that ‘my client will come’. Cross-examined on the basis that he did not mention this in his evidence initially, he said:
when I first negotiated I said I had an order from a client. I forgot to mention client yesterday.
…
I clearly remember saying it was my client who needed the foreign exchange. I remember saying this cash would be brought by the client.
55I prefer Shao’s consistent evidence that Xia did not mention a client at that stage.
56Even if he had mentioned a client then – that is, even if Xia had used the words he swears to having used – it would not have affected the fact that the agreement was between Xia and Shao. It was not an agreement involving Xia acting as agent for his client.
57Xia gave evidence that Wang agreed to pay him $150,000 for the bitcoins:
Mr Wang would pay me in one payment.
In this very trade, each bitcoin each one 5K, 30 of them so $150,000 – this one off payment Wang needed to pay me.
58In his first affidavit, Xia said that Wang was waiting for his instructions regarding what to do with the cash in his bag.
….one of the males, Mr Wang who accompanied me on that day is my client. Mr Wang has the $150,000.00 in cash in his bag waiting for my instructions.
59He later said it was not Wang, but Josh who accompanied him to the meeting with Shao.
60In any event, it was Xia who told Josh to pay the money to Shao.
61The way Xia earnt money from client trades (according to his evidence) was by negotiating a price between him and the client, which would be higher than what he paid for the coins. He said, ‘I buy low and sell high’. When asked about this particular transaction (with Wang), he said that his cost would be lower (than the $150,000 paid to him by Wang), and ‘my supplier would pay me the price difference.’ I take this to mean that it was agreed between Xia and Na Li (who he called both his ‘partner’ and his ‘supplier’) that Na Li would pay him an agreed amount (the ‘price difference’), after the 732,000 RMB was transferred to the nominated account and the bitcoins were transferred to Xia (or at his direction, to Wang). Xia agreed in cross examination that his income was generated from the end supplier, not the exchange difference.
62So, having agreed to sell the bitcoins to Wang, Xia had agreed to buy them from Na Li, on the basis that once the RMB had been transferred to the nominated account, Na Li was to send the bitcoins to Xia (or at Xia’s direction, to Wang). And after sending the bitcoins, Na Li was then to pay Xia the ‘price difference’ amount they agreed for that transaction.
63These separate deals which Xia made with his client Wang, and his supplier, Na Li, did not alter the arrangement between Shao and Xia.
64My finding that their oral agreement is as claimed by Shao is strengthened by the terms of the written agreement, which they both signed shortly after the bag of cash was handed back by Shao.
65When Xia first gave evidence at trial, he described the written agreement as an ‘IOU’ which he drafted and signed because Shao asked him to.
66Following his cross-examination, I asked him if he wanted to say anything about the circumstances in which he signed that agreement, because in his second affidavit he had sworn:
After Josh and his friends and police officers left, Mr Shao forced me to write a loan agreement with him saying that I owed him $150,000.00.
67He had also said that Shao had forced him to sign the written agreement in his outline of submissions, filed before trial.
68Xia then gave evidence that the reason he had signed the written agreement was because he had feared for his safety. He did not say why he had any fear, or give any detail of anything said to him, nor any circumstances to lead to that fear.
69I do not accept that he was forced to sign the written agreement.
70Both Shao and Xia gave evidence that they negotiated the wording used in the written agreement. Xia was the one who wrote it, and who added the final clause, noting they could later agree to Xia having longer to pay.
71In the written agreement, Xia accepted liability himself. The agreement did not mention Wang, or a client of Xia’s, as being liable, or involved in any way. It simply said Xia owed the money and that he would pay it by March 19 2019 (unless otherwise agreed).
72From his evidence, it seemed to me that Xia’s principal concern in drafting the written agreement was how long he had to pay Shao the $150,000. He added in the section about the money being paid later (than 19 March) if both parties agreed.
73At the hearing Xia said he was never ‘loaned’ money by Shao. That is true.
74But he was not sued on a ‘loan agreement’. He was sued on the basis of the oral agreement to pay $150,000 in exchange for the transfer of 732,000 RMB to a nominated account.
75Xia himself regarded the written agreement as in the nature of an ‘IOU’. I consider it to be a document prepared by non-lawyers to record the fact that in the circumstances that had occurred, both Xia and Shao considered Xia owed Shao $150,000.
The transfer of 732,000 RMB
76I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the 732,000 RMB was transferred to the nominated account on 19 January 2019.
77Shao relied on the two transfer screenshots he gave evidence his wife’s cousin sent him, and in another screenshot of the relevant bank account which was put into evidence (the bank account screenshot).
78Xia submitted that these screenshots did not establish that the money was transferred. He said that while a huge amount of money was said to have been transferred, Shao was unable to provide reasonable bank statements in a reasonable format to prove it. He questioned the authenticity of the screenshots. He said that these screenshot images can be easily modified by photoshop or some kind of modern computer software.
79Xia said there was nothing to show that the money was received by Zicen Cai or transferred to the correct account. He asked why the bank account screenshot did not show the name of the account holder. Shao’s evidence was that this is how mobile phone transfers in China look.
80Mr Flower, solicitor for Shao, said that this was the best evidence Shao could obtain, and it was relied on. He said that his client informed him that the statement had been received by him from his cousin, the documents were only in electronic form, and the documents he provided were the best he could do.
81Shao exhibited the bank account screenshot in his second affidavit, describing it as an electronic copy of a bank statement relating to the account showing transfers and deposits over the relevant period.
82I accept that it is an electronic copy of a bank statement, on the balance of probabilities. The statement appears to be a document that would commonly be produced by a computer. Use of a computer is common in banking practice and I infer the information in the screenshots were produced by a computing device.
83Shao gave evidence of Bi Chen sending him the two transfer screenshots on 19 January 2019. The bank account screenshot is consistent with the information in those two transfer screenshots.
84There is nothing to suggest that these documents were modified, other than Xia’s submission that this could have occurred. The two transfer screenshots were sent to Shao within minutes of the cash being given to him at the casino. They showed the correct account number he had been asked to transfer the RMB into. They showed the correct amount in total. They named Zicen Cai. The bank account screenshot shows those transfers too, and indicates that the transfers were not reversed.
85Although the evidence provided is not the best evidence that could have been given, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it shows the money was transferred.
$150,000 is owing
86I am satisfied Xia owes Shao the claimed $150,000.
87The agreement between Xia and Shao was carried out by Shao, who arranged the transfer of 732,000 RMB to Zisen Cai (whose account details were given to him by his Bitcoin supplier in China, Na Li).
88Xia said at trial, ‘I have never said I would 100% be responsible for this money.’ But he made the agreement with Shao to pay $150,000 in return for the 732,000 RMB being transferred. He was responsible to Shao, whatever arrangement he privately had with Wang or Na Li.
89Xia submitted that the Court should not be satisfied that Shao suffered loss.
90He said that the screenshots do not show the transfer as coming from Shao’s account, so there is nothing to show Shao himself has suffered loss.
91However, in contractual terms Shao carried out his part – arranging the transfer of 732,000 RMB to the nominated account – and so he is entitled in return to the $150,000.
92Further, as submitted for Shao, Shao has a liability to his wife’s cousin Bi Chen, who did transfer the money, which he is required to reimburse.
93Shao was initially given $150,000 in cash, and then arranged the transfer of the 732,000 RMB. I considered if this meant that the agreement between them was completely carried out, and whether the fact that the $150,000 cash was returned (following police intervention) might have instead given rise potentially to a different claim than that made by Shao in contract. However, I accept the submission for Shao that this would be an artificial and erroneous interpretation of the facts surrounding this transaction. The short point is that in terms of the agreement, Shao did not receive $150,000. He was handed it and held it briefly – but then Xia asked him to give it back (to Josh), and he did (following police intervention).
94Xia submitted that he did not get any money himself from all this.
95But Shao did what he asked – transferred 732,000 RMB to the nominated account. It seems that the trouble happened at Xia’s end. Xia chose to deal with his supplier Na Li and to accept her direction to arrange transfer of the RMB to the account of someone he did not know and had never dealt with (Zisen Cai). Na Li then stopped responding to him, and he does not know how to locate Zisen Cai.
96In contractual terms, he received a benefit: having 732,000 RMB being transferred to the account he nominated.
Illegality?
97Xia’s defence filed in this matter (when he was represented by solicitors) did not mention an illegality defence, but he raised the issue of illegality later, and mentioned it briefly at trial.
98His arguments were as follows.
99In his second affidavit, Xia said:
I was told by my Chinese friend that it is illegal to exchange equivalent of AUD $150,000.00 in Chinese Renminbi without the special approval of the Chinese government.
100In his written outline filed before trial, he referred to the ‘loan agreement’ as illegal.
101In closing submissions, Xia submitted that Shao received $150,000 cash, but failed to report this to any financial authorities. He submitted that this act is ‘apparently against money laundering legislation’. He submitted that any cash transactions over $10,000 should be reported. He said that because it was not reported, no order should be made against him.
102Xia did not refer to any legal authorities in making his submission.
103As mentioned, this issue was not pleaded in Xia’s defence. Xia did not suggest to Shao that the transaction was illegal when Shao gave his evidence.
104Shao’s solicitor, Mr Flower, submitted that if illegality had been pleaded as a defence, or the issue squarely raised, he would have dealt with it by way of evidence or legal argument. However, he made some comments, on a ‘speculative’ basis in any event.
105He submitted that if Shao had received the $150,000 cash, he would have had to notify AUSTRAC as a transaction in excess of $10,000. But since he did not ultimately receive the money there was no obligation to report anything.
106He further submitted that if money had been given to Shao to launder, it could be confiscated.
107However, there was no evidence that the $150,000 was from the proceeds of crime. On the contrary, Xia’s own evidence was that the money came from the sale of bitcoin – a legal transaction.
108In deciding this case, I must deal with the evidence as given, on the issues squarely raised between the parties.
109No illegality is established.
Conclusion
110I will order that Xia pay $150,000, and interest, to Shao.
111The usual order is that a losing party pay the costs of a proceeding on the standard basis. If different orders are sought by either party, I will list a costs hearing. The parties should let me know if consent orders are agreed by 4pm on 26 May 2021. If the parties cannot agree, a costs hearing will be listed.
---
Certificate
I certify that these 19 pages are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of Her Honour Judge Marks, delivered on 19 May 2021, revised on 21 May 2021.
Dated: 21 May 2021
Nakita Wilson
Associate to Her Honour Judge Marks
0
0
0