The properties are alleged to be linked to the estate of a businessman who was murdered in 2017
The Supreme Court of British Columbia has permitted a legal claim involving allegations of fraudulent property transfers and unpaid debts linked to Vancouver real estate to move forward, denying attempts by the defendants to have the case dismissed.
The plaintiffs, representing the estate of a businessman who was murdered in 2017, alleged that millions in loan proceeds were used to purchase several properties in Vancouver. These properties were later transferred to relatives of the individual convicted of the businessman’s murder. The plaintiffs are seeking to recover approximately $113.5 million, claiming fraud, unjust enrichment, and unpaid debts. Certificates of Pending Litigation (CPLs) remain registered against the properties, restricting their sale or transfer.
The defendants argued the lawsuit was an abuse of process, citing earlier judgments in China that addressed portions of the debt claims. They also sought to have the case dismissed due to significant delays, asserting that the plaintiffs’ lack of action had caused financial and procedural harm. The court, however, allowed the case to proceed, granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their claims to include enforcement of the Chinese judgments and allegations of fraudulent property conveyances.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the delays in advancing the litigation were inordinate but found the claims retained legal merit, particularly concerning allegations of property transfers designed to shield assets. While procedural shortcomings were noted, the court emphasized the plaintiffs’ position as victims of a serious crime and the need for their claims to be fully adjudicated.
One of the defendants raised financial hardship concerns, requesting permission to sell a Vancouver property to cover living expenses. The court allowed the sale, subject to conditions ensuring security for the plaintiffs’ claims. CPLs on other properties owned by the defendants remained in effect.
The court declined to dismiss the lawsuit, citing the gravity of the allegations and the substantive claims raised by the plaintiffs. However, it stressed the need for the case to proceed without further delay and set a trial deadline for January 2026.
