'Little Sweetie' loses battle for slain husband's fortune
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Asia's richest businesswoman, Nina Wang – known to some as Little Sweetie – has lost a legal battle to keep the multimillion-dollar estate of her husband, who was kidnapped 12 years ago and has not been seen again.
A High Court judge in Hong Kong ruled that a will leaving his fortune to her, drawn up a month before Teddy Wang's abduction, was a fake. Part of it was "probably" written by Mrs Wang, the judge said.
The ruling was the latest development in a rumbustious scandal that has transfixed Hong Kong for years, and a personal setback for a middle-aged woman whose pigtails and exotic clothes have raised as many eyebrows as her wealth – estimated by Forbes magazine to be $2.4bn (£1.5bn). Police said after the verdict they were investigating the case; Mrs Wang's lawyers said she would appeal.
The 171-day trial centred on a battle between Nina Wang, who chairs the Chinachem Group, Hong Kong's largest property developer, and her father-in-law, Wang Din-shin, 91. At issue was an estimated $128m inheritance. It ended – after hearing accounts of adultery and betrayal – in a victory for the elderly man, named sole beneficiary by the court.
Teddy Wang, a highly successful property developer, was kidnapped from his car in 1990 on his way out of Hong Kong's Jockey Club. It was the second time he had been abducted. Seven years earlier, he was recovered from inside a refrigerator after his wife, Nina, paid an $11m ransom.
The second time, his family paid three times as much – $34m – but to no avail. Teddy was not seen again. Several years later, one of his kidnappers claimed Mr Wang, then 56, was held on a "sampar", a small Chinese boat, and then thrown into the sea.
Nina Wang, who married Teddy at 18 after a childhood romance, was adamant her husband was still alive, and would eventually return. Exercising power of attorney as a co-director, she took control of his prospering company, which expanded into an empire.
Small and, at 64, boundlessly energetic, she became one of the world's wealthiest females, who was famous both for her frugality – she spends just $390 a month on herself – and her grandiose business plans. The latter included a scheme for the world's largest tower block which, though dedicated to her missing husband, was to be called the Nina Tower. In the end, it wasn't built; it was too close to an airport.
Teddy Wang's father campaigned hard to have his childless son declared dead, so that the estate could be settled. In 1999, he succeeded and launched a civil suit to claim his inheritance. But there were two wills.
Teddy had one, from 1968, which left his father everything and which his father said was written after he had told his son that Nina was having an affair. The court listened to testimony that the Teddy – angered by his wife's infidelity – rescinded an earlier 1960 will that split his riches equally between Nina and his father.
The second will was brandished by Nina. She said it was penned by Teddy in 1990 after he had fallen off a horse. It left everything to her. It included a phrase, in English, which stated "One love, one life".
Contents of that will were meticulously examined during the hearing by handwriting experts, who used ink-dating techniques to estimate when it could have been written. In a 568-page ruling, Judge David Yam concluded it was forged.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments