Billionaire Eric Hotung was inconsistent in making his case to claim ownership of certain shares in a casino business worth an “unimaginable” sum half a century ago, the High Court heard on Wednesday. Hotung, 90, is suing his secret lover Winnie Ho Yuen-ki in a bitter lawsuit over HK$2 million he gave to her, allegedly on trust, to invest in her brother Stanley Ho Hung-sun’s then fledgling gambling business in Macau in 1961. But the evidence he gave during four days of cross-examination earlier was described by a lawyer as fraught with inconsistencies. Eric Hotung denied involvement in gambling company to ‘conceal it from his wife’ Edward Chan King-sang SC, representing Winnie Ho, argued that Hotung only gave answers favourable to his claim. In making his closing submission, the barrister said Hotung had failed to explain why he needed to conceal his involvement in the gaming business. The court earlier heard that Hotung was not on good terms with Stanley Ho at the time. But Chan argued that Stanley Ho had long known his sister was investing in his casino business with Hotung’s money and questioned the need for continued concealment. Hotung was said to have transferred HK$2 million to the businesswoman half a century ago, but he denied it was a gift, as the sum was equivalent to two-thirds of his personal wealth at the time. Lawyer Hylas Chung Yuen-foo, for Hotung, told the court earlier that the amount – roughly equal to HK$640 million in 2015 – could not have been a loan or a gift because it was an “unimaginable sum for anyone at that time”. Hong Kong businesswoman Winnie Ho may be too unwell to testify in lawsuit with billionaire secret lover Eric Hotung But Chan argued that the dispute between the secret lovers over the nature of the sum might have resulted from the fact that they had not thought it through before the transfer. “It’s more likely a gift than a loan,” said the barrister, noting there was no indication that Hotung asked for a repayment before the lawsuit. On whether the sum was given to the businesswoman on trust, as claimed by Hotung, Chan argued that there was also no evidence of a trust agreement between the two. Hotung’s letters to Winnie Ho presented before the court indicated that their love relationship had lasted for 70 years, Chan noted. “Their intimate relationship far exceeded those of many married couples,” said the barrister, negating the need for a trust agreement between Hotung and Winnie Ho. The hearing continues on Friday before Mr Justice Anderson Chow Ka-ming.