唐炜臻,司法系统的受害者?
大中公益网096.ca 2012年04月27日 16:50 来源:大中报记者南茜(Nancy Jin)
Weizhen Tang, victim of legal system?
可以毫不夸张地说,唐炜臻已成为加拿大当局的众矢之的。安省证监会在2009年3月对唐炜臻发出临时交易禁令,三个月后对其提出11项指控。当年的11月份,多伦多警方对唐炜臻提出一项$5000元以上欺诈的刑事指控。
It is not exaggerating to say that Weizhen Tang has been in the crosshairs of the Canadian authorities. After the OSC issued a temporary cease trade order against him in Mar. 2009, Tang was charged 3 months later with 11 counts of offences by the OSC, and in Nov., a criminal charge of fraud over $5000 was laid by the Toronto Police.
毫无疑问,目前唐炜臻被多宗官司缠身。其刑事欺诈指控将在今年下半年开审,而安省证监会对他的准刑事指控也有待法庭聆讯。
No doubt that Weizhen Tang is currently inundated with legal actions. His criminal fraud charges will be tried later this year, while the OSC quasi-criminal charges against him are pending.
尚未为其刑事审判聘请到律师的唐的时运似乎已经到头。据唐为其安省证监会聆讯所聘请的律师王海云表示,唐的法律援助律师申请遭到驳回,他随后所进行的由于没有律师而将诉讼停止的申请-俗称Rowbotham申请也被驳回。
Tang, who has yet to retain a legal counsel for his criminal trial, seems to be running out of luck. According to Haiyun Wang, Tang’s legal counsel for his OSC hearing, Tang’s application for a Legal Aid lawyer was rejected, and his subsequent application for a Rowbotham application – for stay of proceedings due to lack of legal counsel, was also turned down.
王海云表示:“法律援助机构和其他机构不愿意仅看问题表面而怀疑唐有财政资源……他们可能认为他有资金,但是对这些资金他已失去控制,也无法动用……由于他的Rowbotham申请被驳回,他很可能在没有律师的情况下面临审判…… 老实说,我不知道没有律师他将如何应对这场官司。”
“The Legal Aid and authorities have doubt about Tang’s financial resources, and are not prepared to take everything on face value… They may think he has funds, but these are funds he got no control over or can lay his hands on,” says Wang. “As his Rowbotham application was rejected, he would face trial without counsel, and I honestly don’t know how he could proceed without a lawyer.”
在刑事审讯中获得律师帮助是被告的基本合法权利。无论刑事指控有多严重,《加拿大人权宪章》规定被告有受公平之审判的权利。审判中,律师可帮助被告减轻罪名或撤消指控,而对于面临复杂的刑事指控的被告来说, 如果没有律师相助,他们受到公平审判之权利可能会因此被剥夺。
To obtain legal counsel at criminal trial is a fundamental legal right of an accused. Regardless of how serious the criminal charges laid are, the Canadian Charter of Rights says that an accused has the right to a fair trial. For those who face complex criminal charges, such right may be deprived without the assistance of a lawyer at trial, who may help the accused in ascertaining a lesser charge or in getting the charges withdrawn.
王海云就唐的法律援助申请被驳回表示:“他的案件相当复杂…… 我认为剥夺他由律师代表的基本权利对他来说是非常不幸的。”
“His case is quite complex… I think this is a very unfortunate situation which may deprive him of his basic rights to be represented by counsel,” says Wang, referring to the rejection of Tang’s Legal Aid application.
除了待审的刑事审判和安省证监会聆讯,唐还面临数起民事诉讼案。Rochon Genova (RG) 律师事务所在2011年8月宣布向唐提起集体诉讼,该案目前正在等待法院批准,而其他几起包括Aiping Co.公司 (王金支) 和You-Shi Lou提出的索赔民事诉讼也都将唐列为被告。
Apart from the pending criminal trial and the OSC hearing, Tang is also facing a slew of civil lawsuits. While a class action lawsuit announced by the law firm Rochon Genova (RG) in Aug. 2011 is pending court certification, several civil actions have put Tang on the defendant list – including a claim from Aiping Co. (Wang Jinzhi) and You-Shi Lou.
Aiping Co.公司和Lou都轻松地获得缺席判决。2009年3月6日,在唐没有进行辩护的情况下,法院向唐发出支付Aiping Co.公司$50万元的缺省判决。而事后王海云曾试图帮助唐推翻这一裁决,却以失败告终。
Both Aiping Co. and Lou easily obtained default judgements. On Mar. 6, 2009, without Tang’s defence to the claim, Aiping Co. obtained a default judgement of $500,000, which Haiyun Wang had tried to help Tang overturn, but to no avail.
为了获得缺省判决的赔偿,Aiping Co.公司随即向法院注册官提出申请,要求没收并拍卖唐及其妻子萧红名下的房产。
To satisfy the default judgement, Aiping Co. immediately made a requisition to a court registrar to seize and sell the house under Tang and his wife Xiao.
由于未能推翻缺省判决未,唐的房产遭拍卖,但是由于买家出价不足,无以抵偿所有的房产开支和债务,唐才得以幸运地在家栖身。
As the default judgement failed to be set aside, the selling of Tang’s house was initiated but due to a lack of qualified bid to cover all the expenses and debts, Tang luckily can remain in his home.
王就法官不与推翻缺省判决的决定表示:“唐几乎就要被逐出家门,流浪街头……这一裁决的确让我非常震惊,通常情况下,这种(推翻缺席判决)的动议非常简单明了。”
“He was very close to getting evicted and sleeping on the street… I was very shocked actually to have that judgement,” says Wang, referring to the judge’s order denying her motion to set aside a default judgment. “Usually, this type of motion is quite straightforward.”
在提起集体诉讼之前,RG律师事务所在 2011年1月代表投资者You-Shi Lou提出索赔,指控唐违约和欺诈性虚报,要求其赔偿$15万元。
In Jan. 2011, prior to the class action lawsuit, RG filed a separate claim on behalf of one investor You-Shi Lou, seeking damages of $150,000 against Tang, for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation.
而唐再一次未能对Lou的指控作出辩护。据法庭文件,Lou也于2011年2月获得对唐的缺省判决。
Again, Tang did not file a response to Lou’s claim. According to court documents, in Feb. 2011, Lou also obtained a default judgement against Tang.
代表Lou的RG律师约翰?阿奇伯德称:“由于唐没有进行辩护,他(Lou)很快地就获得了缺省判决。”
“He (Lou) obtained judgment relatively quickly because Mr. Tang did not defend it,” said John Archibald, the RG lawyer representing Lou.
为了获得缺席判决的赔偿,RG向法庭提起动议,要求唐公开他自己及其公司的所有账户记录。
Taking steps to satisfy the default judgment, RG filed a motion demanded that Tang disclose all of his and his company’s account records.
唐根据法庭令交出了某些记录,但拒绝交出包括E-Trade Canada,TD银行及其个人账户等信息。 RG因此向法庭申请唐蔑视法庭动议。
Tang produced some required records under a court order, but refused to disclose several others – including accounts with E-Trade Canada and TD, and his personal bank accounts. RG then filed a motion for contempt of court.
唐表示他从未有意蔑视法庭,但认为法庭命令对他不公,也没有在法律过程中获得恰当的辩护。他对这些索赔之得以顺利进展而感到不满,而自己因缺乏资金,人力和能力为自己辩护。
Tang says that while he never intended to act in contempt of court, he does not believe that the court orders were fair to him, nor has he been defended properly in the process. He is not satisfied with the way that the claims are progressing against him, but lacks funding, resources and skills to defend himself.
唐称:“我认为这些法庭命令对我不公平,我本想对这些诉讼提出辩护,但是我没有钱请律师……我所有的资金都被安省证监会冻结……我目前依靠福利金生活,甚至无法养家糊口。”
“I don’t think these court orders are fair, and I wanted to defend them,” says Tang. “But I don’t have money to hire a lawyer… All my money was frozen by the OSC… I am currently on welfare and cannot even support my family.”
如果唐曾请律师对诉讼作出反应,他则很可能会面临完全不同的结局。据法律专家表示, 唐可以以参与民事诉讼会影响其刑事案的审判为由,要求这些民事诉讼暂停,待其刑事案了结后再审理。
But had Tang hired lawyers to deal with the claims, he might have faced a different outcome – he might have been able to get the civil claims stayed until after his criminal case concludes by arguing that his participation in civil claim may negatively affect his criminal trial, according to legal experts.
在不评论唐的案件的前提下,Blakes律师行的律师Tony Wong表示:“民事诉讼虽不会自动暂停,但是被告可以提出申请寻求法庭批准暂停民事诉讼,待刑事案件结案后再审理。一般来说,要使该申请得到法庭批准,被告必须向法庭证明他如果被要求参与民事诉讼,将会严重影响到他在刑事案件中受到公平审判的权利。”
“There is no automatic stay of a civil action but an accused can make an application to seek a stay of the civil action pending completion of the criminal case. Generally speaking, to succeed on such an application, the onus would be on the accused to prove that being required to participate in the civil action would significantly prejudice his right to a fair trial in the criminal matter,” says Tony Wong, legal counsel with Blakes, who was not commenting specifically on the Tang case.
目前,唐仍在继续与加拿大法律系统和当局抗争,通过发送电子邮件向各种法律顾问、对方律师和政客呼吁,称自己的权利受到侵犯。
Tang is continuing his fight with the Canadian legal system and the authorities, claiming that his rights have been violated through emails to a slew of legal counsels, opposing lawyers and politicians.
但是,唐的投资者的权利和他作为被告的自身权利有可能发生冲突。虽然一些投资者代表谴责唐的声明“荒谬并具有误导性”,指控其试图利用网上论坛“再次使用他的快速致富诡计骗人”,但是王表示,她相信唐已经处于经济上的绝望境地,且为保护他的自身权益,他已经尽其所有。
However, the rights of Tang’s investors and his own rights as a defendant may clash. While his proclaims were denounced as “ridiculous and misleading” by some investor activists, who accused him of trying to use internet forums to “con people with his getting rich quick scheme again”, Wang says she believes that Tang is in a desperate financial situation where he has exhausted all his resources to protect his legal rights.
王海云表示:“人们总是对他人应如何行事有先入为主的观念。人们认为唐过去曾拥有很多钱,因此他目前也应该有钱,但这并不意味着事实就是如此。”
“People have their own presumption about how others should behave. People think as Tang used to handling a lot of money, he should have money at this moment, which doesn’t necessarily mean it is true.
她补充道:“说实话,我对相关的相法律援助以及法庭判决深感失望和不安,当然,法官作出判决也有一定依据……我认为他们所做的结论存在问题。”
“To be honest, I’m deeply disappointed and upset about the legal aid and the judgements but at the same time, the judge has to rely on something to deliver judgement,” she added. “I think the conclusion they drew is problematic.”
编注:如果你对本文有任何评论,请到096.ca的“特别报道”栏目下、此文的论坛里发表评论。如果你有任何社区、社会和生活故事与大中报的读者分享,或有问题需要大中报回答或调查,请将你的评论或问题细节以电话留言(416-504-0761 转213分机),或传真(416-504-4928),或电邮()发给大中报,或电邮给南茜()。你可以匿名为本报提供调查线索,但调查线索应包括当事人的联系电话或地址、发生问题的时间及地址等信息。
回复
fishhawk
2013-01-21 23:24
举报
0
WHAT IS THE POINT OF SHOWING THIS OLD NEWS?
THE CONTENT JUST SHOW YOUR LIES!!!
YOU CLAIMED THAT YOU WERE DENIED LEGAL AID BUT YOU DID IT TO YOURSELF AS YOU REFUSED TO REVEAL YOUR COMPLETE FINANCIAL RECORDS!!
YOU CLAIMED YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER BUT WANG 王海云WAS YOUR LAWYER ONCE UPON A TIME. JUST TELL US WHY SHE VACATED FROM YOUR CASE? YOU ALSO HAD A LAWYER BEFORE HER. WHAT HAPPENED THERE? YOU SCREWED UP!!!
唐根据法庭令交出了某些记录,但拒绝交出包括E-Trade Canada,TD银行及其个人账户等信息。
WHAT ARE YOU HIDING????!!!!!!
回复 bs40:坐牢前能否把500翻番3次?
What can this prove? Tang will tell you that he once had glorious returns for a few trades and for a certain period but that doesn't mean he can make money CONSISTENTLY.
The evidences provided in court and to the jury is that Tang ran a Ponzi scheme!!! He broke the LAW!! AND HE IS GOING TO PRISON FOR THAT!! IT IS NOT ABOUT HIS ABILITIES AS A MONEY MANAGER!!!!
AS FOR HIS ABILITIES AS A MONEY MANAGER, IT IS A JOKE!!!! HE IS JUST A GAMBLER IN THE MARKET. ANYONE STILL BELIEVES HIS 1% BULLSHIT IS JUST AS CRAZY AS TANG.
老唐,别胡弄公衆了。你自知,清楚明白的。
你上诉? 知不知道上诉是要有理據的。你的定罪是铁证如山,那你自已说你的上诉申请会不会成功?
是时候付出你应该付的代价了。很快輪到你的幫兇了....
从头到尾,每一个司法步骤都没有对你不公平。这些都是公眾记录!!懂的人都可以从相关部门拿到。记者朋友们可以作証。别的不说,你当初申请法援,你不肯和没有公开你所有真实財務記錄,不能证明你一无所有,那政府不提供法援只是依法办事而已。你胡叫不公什么?!!
在牢中好好反省吧。不过对你是没有期望的,就好像OMara说你"...lack of remorse...." 就憑这句...刑期就不会短!!!
回复
唐炜臻
2013-01-20 20:29
举报
0
我的案子不仅没有律师不公平,用纳税人的钱数百万,拖我4年,而且程序有问题并且不光明正大,律师只跟律师谈,在没有律师的情况下不谈,只搞一言堂是不公正,不光明的。
有案子,必须发现问题,讨论,辩论,解决问题,需要谈判,而检控官无视我没有律师,自己就是律师,不能只用法律语言,必须用通俗语言,发现,商讨,解决问题。
我们没有正常的程序,只有法庭单方面的,拖着我走路,折磨一个手无寸铁,没有法律保护而受限制,伤害的人,是残忍的。
My case is not only not fair since I do not have a lawyer and last for 4 years, but also the process is not honourable or dishonor since there was no offer and talks.
I do not have a lawyer, I am my own lawyer, we have to have talks, I requested talks many times, they did not answer and ignore me.
We never had any discovery, no discussion, no settlement offer, no negotiation since I do not have a lawyer of my own and I am my own lawyer, the crown attorney never offer me anything and never gave me a talk before going to court, but I gave them offer and they never did response to me for three years in the crown and four years with OSC. All they did was to torture me, restrict me and isolated me and made me and my investors all suffer and force me to plea guilt and the process was dishonored and disgraceful to the crown and OSC.
The Justice Nordhemer in the middle of year 2012 told me that they only talk to me if I plea guilt
Why did I deceive my investors and gave my own money to them?
回复
唐炜臻
2013-01-20 20:02
举报
0
我的案子不仅没有律师不公平,用纳税人的钱数百万,拖我4年,而且程序有问题并且不光明正大,律师只跟律师谈,在没有律师的情况下不谈,只搞一言堂是不公正,不光明的。
有案子,必须发现问题,讨论,辩论,解决问题,需要谈判,而检控官无视我没有律师,自己就是律师,不能只用法律语言,必须用通俗语言,发现,商讨,解决问题。
我们没有正常的程序,只有法庭单方面的,拖着我走路,折磨一个手无寸铁,没有法律保护而受限制,伤害的人,是残忍的。
My case is not only not fair since I do not have a lawyer and last for 4 years, but also the process is not honourable or dishonor since there was no offer and talks.
I do not have a lawyer, I am my own lawyer, we have to have talks, I requested talks many times, they did not answer and ignore me.
We never had any discovery, no discussion, no settlement offer, no negotiation since I do not have a lawyer of my own and I am my own lawyer, the crown attorney never offer me anything and never gave me a talk before going to court, but I gave them offer and they never did response to me for three years in the crown and four years with OSC. All they did was to torture me, restrict me and isolated me and made me and my investors all suffer and force me to plea guilt and the process was dishonored and disgraceful to the crown and OSC.
The Justice Nordhemer in the middle of year 2012 told me that they only talk to me if I plea guilt
Why did I deceive my investors and gave my own money to them?
Judge says no psychological assessment for ‘shrewd’ Tang
JANET McFARLAND
The Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Jan. 18 2013, 12:49 PM EST
Last updated Friday, Jan. 18 2013, 12:49 PM EST
A judge has ruled against ordering a psychological assessment before sentencing Weizhen Tang, saying he does not believe the convicted fraudster has a mental disorder and instead believes he is a “shrewd” salesman.
Mr. Justice Alfred O’Marra of the Ontario Superior Court said Mr. Tang clearly feels unfairly convicted and persecuted by the justice system, but said those beliefs have no bearing on the sentence he will receive.
MORE RELATED TO THIS STORY
Convicted ‘Chinese Warren Buffett’ apologizes to investors
COURTS Judge postpones sentencing of ‘Chinese Warren Buffett’
Crown seeks 10-year sentence for ‘Chinese Warren Buffett’
“I have no reason to believe he suffers from a mental disorder that would mitigate sentencing,” Judge O’Marra said.
Judge O’Marra acknowledged Mr. Tang has sent “rambling” letters to public figures such as Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty, and has “railed” about the injustices he has faced. But he said he believes Mr. Tang is “shrewd” and was a “ very good salesman” who convinced investors to give him over $50-million of their funds.
The former fund manager, who calls himself a Chinese Warren Buffett, was convicted in October of operating a Ponzi scheme that ultimately lost over $20-million of investors’ funds. Judge O’Marra said Friday that he convicted Mr. Tang because there was “overwhelming” evidence he committed fraud, made false promises to investors, provided them with false account statements and wrongly paid himself fees from their funds.
When his Oversea Chinese Fund LP was shut down in 2009 by the Ontario Securities Commission, it had just $1,000 in its bank accounts — a far cry from the $70-million Mr. Tang had reported to investors a month earlier.
Judge O’Marra said Friday it is only appropriate to order a psychological assessment in sentencing if there are issues that would have a direct impact on the sentence, citing a prior case involving a sexual offender who was ordered to be assessed before sentencing to determine if he was a pedophile. He said there is no similar need in Mr. Tang’s case.
While expressions of remorse can be a mitigating factor in sentencing, Judge O’Marra’s said Mr. Tang’s lack of remorse and his comments about his mistreatment by the justice system are not an aggravating factor that would increase his sentence.
Mr. Tang told the court earlier this month that he was truly sorry his investors lost money, which was the first time he had expressed remorse for his crime. But also added he believed he has done nothing wrong.
The Crown has asked for a sentence of eight to ten years in the case, and has asked the judge to impose fines and victim restitution orders totalling more than $8-million. Mr. Tang, who is representing himself with the assistance of a court-appointed lawyer to advise him, has argued he should get no jail sentence and pay no fine, but says he would accept orders to repay victims “as a show of good faith.”
He has told the court he hasn’t worked in four years, has no money and is living on welfare with help from his daughter.
The sentencing hearing is scheduled to resume Feb. 1 when Mr. Tang intends to present character reference letters he said he has received from supporters. Under questioning by the judge, Mr. Tang said some of his letters are testimonials written in the past by leaders in Toronto’s Chinese community.
“Having been found guilty, I’m not in a position to go around asking for sufficient new reference letters,” he told the court through a translator.
回复
唐炜臻
2013-01-18 21:54
举报
0
我回来了,法官说我没有精神病,很聪明
2013-01-18 12:56:37
Chinese ‘Warren Buffett’ denied psychological assessment
Published 1 hours, 8 minutes ago Share on twitterShare on facebook
tang
Colin McConnell/Toronto Star Convicted fraudster Weizhen Tang speaks to media Jan. 9 outside University courthouse during lunch break. COLIN MCCONNELL/ TORONTO STAR Madhavi Acharya-Tom Yew
Business Reporter
Weizhen Tang, the Toronto businessman known as the Chinese Warren Buffett, will not be ordered to submit to a psychological assessment before he is sentenced for fraud.
Justice Alfred O’Marra of the Ontario Superior Court denied the application by the court-appointed lawyer who has been advising Tang.
In reading his decision to the court on Friday, Justice O’Marra called Tang a “shrewd and intelligent businessman” and “a good salesman.
“I have no reason to believe he suffers from a mental disorder,” the judge said. “The application is denied.”
The sentencing hearing will continue on Feb 1, when Tang is expected to offer character references on his behalf.
Peter Boushy, the Hamilton defence lawyer who advises Tang on legal and procedural matters, had asked Justice O’Marra to grant the order during the sentencing hearing for Tang, who has been found guilty of one count of fraud over $5,000.
The application was based Tang’s tendency to rant in the courtroom, his lack of remorse, and his habit of sending long open letters to the media and authorities, suggesting he is the victim of a conspiracy.
Crown prosecutors opposed the request.
The court also heard Friday that Tang plans to appeal his conviction.
Tang, who defended himself at trial, bills himself as the “Chinese Warren Buffett.”
The court heard during the trial that Tang collected about $52 million from more than 200 investors through his company, the Overseas Chinese Fund Limited Partnership.
About $19 million was lost in the markets and $2.8 million was funneled into personal accounts belonging to Tang, his businesses and his family. The rest was returned to investors.
Prosecutors are seeking a jail sentence of eight to 10 years, a fine of $2.8 million and a restitution order.
Tang promised guaranteed returns of 1 per cent a week to investors, who hailed primarily from Toronto’s Chinese community.
【多维新闻】本文网址:http://blog.dwnews.com/post-279030.html
唐炜臻精神评估申请驳回 2月1日判刑