Top court rules for Chinachem boss on husband's will; she vows to 'take good care' of father-in-law Asia's richest woman, Nina Wang Kung Yu-sum, last night held out an olive branch to her father-in-law after winning an eight-year legal battle with him that finally gave her control over her late husband's $24 billion Chinachem empire. Wang's personal assistant, Ringo Wong, said they were doing their best to find 94-year-old Wang Din-shin and would do all they could to 'take good care' of him. He was speaking after the Court of Final Appeal unanimously ruled that the hand-written will of Teddy Wang Teh-huei in 1990, naming his wife as the sole beneficiary of his estate, was the last valid will. In the judgment, Mr Justice Roberto Ribeiro of the Court of Final Appeal said two lower courts had applied the wrong standard of proof in findings that the signatures on the will were forged. There was no immediate word on the future of criminal charges against Wang, who remains on $55 million bail on counts of forgery and perverting the course of justice, laid by police in January. Mr Wong said he and Wang would step up their personal security after the attack on her brother, Kung Yan-sum, by four men on Thursday night. He presented a written statement from his boss, stating: 'While there is no surprise to this judgment as this is the outcome that we were always confident of obtaining, we are relieved that after all this time the dispute has been brought to a successful conclusion.' Wang Din-shin's lawyer, Albert Tsang, said outside court: 'We are very disappointed and our client is very disappointed.' He said losing was like 'being thrown off a cliff'. 'It is the end of the road in litigation, it's the final appeal, so there is nowhere else we can go,' he said. Mr Wang's whereabouts remained unknown last night. 'We are trying our very best to try to locate [him]', Mr Wong said. 'Once we get hold of him, we will do everything possible to take good care of him.' Yesterday's ruling overturned decisions by the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal that the 1990 will was forged, and was thus superseded by a 1968 will in which Wang Din-shin was named the beneficiary of his son's estate. Teddy Wang, who was kidnapped on April 10, 1990, and never seen again, was declared legally dead on September 22, 1999. The later will, which was home-made and handwritten by Teddy Wang on March 12, 1990, comprised four documents. One of the four documents contains the words 'One life one love', said to refer to his love for his wife. After losing the first two rounds, Nina Wang took her fight to the Court of Final Appeal in July. In the judgment, Mr Justice Ribeiro said: 'In my view, when all the evidence is taken into account, the appellant has clearly discharged her burden of proving, on the balance of probabilities, that the 1990 will is the will of [Teddy] Wang.' He added that 'the crucial evidence' was contained in the written affirmation by Teddy Wang's late butler, Tse Ping-yim, in 1999 in which Tse confirmed that he had witnessed Wang sign the 1990 will. Tse, who had worked as butler since 1983, died in December 1999 from cancer, before he could testify. The judge said the lower courts had erred by requiring Nina to 'dispel suspicious circumstances' surrounding the will, a far more stringent standard than required. The court also ruled that evidence by handwriting experts on both sides concerning the authenticity of the signatures on the 1990 will was inconclusive. This evidence was the major bone of contention during the 172-day hearing before Mr Justice David Yam Yee-kwan in 2002 in the Court of First Instance. The Court of First Instance concluded that there was no reason for Teddy Wang to revoke his 1968 will and to name Nina Wang as the beneficiary in the 1990 will, citing his 'deep gratitude and respect for his father' and matrimonial problems the couple experienced in 1968. But Mr Justice Ribeiro said it was far more likely he would leave the estate to the woman with whom he had 'built up a phenomenally successful property empire in the course of a marriage that has lasted 35 years' than to 'an octogenarian who had already been in retirement for 13 years'.
