回复 23# 唐炜臻
老唐,好久不見...又有新聞,又見報了！恭喜恭喜!!
你還是老樣子...狗口里長不出象牙!!
"集体诉讼发动不起来，发起来赢不了，赢了无利可图，还有如此愚昧的律师行？"??????????
集体诉讼发动不起来?????
明明是"多伦多的Rochon Genova LLP律师事务所9日称，该事务所代表一个加拿大投资者群体，已经在安省高等法院向唐炜臻提起集体诉讼。" 看到"已經"兩個字沒有??? 老唐的老招了---睁着眼睛瞎說八道!!!
再看看:
Canada NewsWire
TORONTO, Aug. 9, 2011
Investors seek millions for losses suffered in alleged Ponzi scheme
TORONTO, Aug. 9, 2011 /CNW/ - Rochon Genova LLP has commenced a class action on behalf of investors who purchased partnership interests in an investment fund called Oversea Chinese Fund Limited Partnership which was founded and operated by Weizhen Tang, a prominent figure in the North American Chinese community.
Mr. Tang, his wife Hong Xiao, and his incorporated companies (also named as defendants in the action) allegedly lured investors into the fund by promoting Mr. Tang as the "Chinese Warren Buffett" and guaranteeing returns of 1% per week. The defendants, however, were allegedly running a Ponzi scheme. In February 2009, Mr. Tang revealed to investors that their account statements had been forged and approximately $60 million of investor funds had been lost. The vast majority of those funds remains unaccounted for.
There are currently ongoing criminal proceedings and an investigation by the Ontario Securities Commission against Mr. Tang. He was also charged by the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States for running a similar Ponzi scheme.
The statement of claim alleges misappropriation, fraudulent conversion, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, among other causes of action. The allegations are not yet proven. Rochon Genova LLP is one of Canada's leading class action firms dedicated to protecting the interests of the public.
please contact Joel Rochon at or John Archibald at
Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/386965#ixzz1UfoWDoq0
至於"发起来赢不了，赢了无利可图"嘛....説的真的一樣,你老唐説的有那一樣實現的?????還早着呢?走着瞧!!
人家可不比你老唐光説不練啊!! 人家可是有實際行動的呀!
你呢? 整天説還錢,錢呢? 食物銀行沒有少给你吧? 想想你以前的托們大魚大肉的,夠你哭的了. 説好説歹人家老赖的托們也養他十几年呢!!
你多保重,别那么快玩完。
May be try civil law suit
May be they can try civil law suit, criminal standard of proof is very high (beyond a reasonable doubt), whereas civil standard of proof is balance of probability, 50%+1, they would have better chance to collect some money form Tang. Take O.J Simpson's trial, he got way with murder in criminal trial, but lost in civil trial, he has to pay millions for damages to the victim's relative (about 28 millions).
False. Tang and Deng will be punished.
A word to investors: when it looks too good to be true, it is too good to be true. It's your money, take control.
回复
XPD
2011-08-10 13:48
举报
0
回复 账号无法删除：The society values individual liberty at very high premium, that is deciding factor of our justice system. In criminal cases, the crown has to proof beyond a reasonable doubt: 1. the criminal intent; 2. action. 3. identity.
It is very difficult to prove criminal intent, besides the strict law on evidence, there is no surprise that quite few criminals walk free after committed a crime and the crown failed to prove it in court.
Tang is not paying for his defence now, that is why he doesn't care. in civil cases, the government will not pay for any legal aid, if Tang doesn't pay a lawyer and lose, there would be a judgement against him, he has to find money some where, sell the house etc.
唐炜臻、萧虹夫妇遭投资客户集体诉讼