Chris Tam Fung-chun, the husband of murdered Hong Kong socialite Abby Choi Tin-fung, firmly denied allegations that he had once wanted a sexual relationship with her former husband, Alex Kwong Kong-chi, as cross-examination at the High Court examined their school friendship, a disputed gambling debt and financial matters involving Choi.
The exchange took place on Wednesday, the 17th day of the trial concerning Choi’s murder and dismemberment. Defence lawyer Andrew Raffell questioned Tam about his relationship with Kwong, whom he had known since their secondary school years at Concordia International School.
The proceedings also covered a HK$5 million gambling debt Tam had incurred in Macau, the involvement of Choi’s former father-in-law in efforts to resolve the dispute, and Tam’s later discovery that a property belonging to Choi remained subject to a substantial mortgage.
Defence Questions Tam About School Friendship
Raffell began by examining the history of Tam’s relationship with Kwong. The two had met while studying at Concordia International School and had become close friends.
Tam acknowledged that they had been close during their school years. However, the defence lawyer suggested their relationship had gone beyond friendship and that Tam had wanted to pursue a sexual relationship with Kwong.
Tam rejected the allegation directly, telling the court that he “totally disagrees.”
After finishing secondary school, Tam travelled to Australia to continue his studies. He said that when he returned to Hong Kong, he continued seeing Kwong and that their relationship remained friendly.
Tam also described how he first met Choi. According to his testimony, Kwong introduced them in 2013, when Choi and Kwong were still married.
Their friendship subsequently weakened after Kwong disappeared and Tam began a relationship with Choi, he told the court. Despite the change in circumstances, Tam maintained that he and Kwong remained on good terms until February 24, 2023.
The defence questioning placed the history of the two men’s relationship under scrutiny as the trial continued. Tam, however, disputed the suggestion that his friendship with Kwong had involved the sexual interest alleged by Raffell.
HK$5 Million Macau Gambling Debt Examined
The questioning then turned to Tam’s financial affairs, including a HK$5 million debt linked to gambling in Macau.
Tam admitted borrowing the money and said Choi had acted as his guarantor. He also acknowledged that, at the time, he had not intended to repay the debt.
His explanation centred on the collapse of Suncity Group, which had gone bankrupt in 2021. Tam said he believed the company’s collapse meant there was no longer an entity to which the money could be repaid.
He described repayment under those circumstances as foolish, arguing that he did not believe he was obliged to settle the amount.
The court heard that debt collectors began visiting Tam’s home after Suncity’s collapse. Tam said he refused to pay because he considered the debt void.
The dispute did not end there. Tam’s father was keen to resolve the matter, and the family experienced harassment from debt collectors, according to Tam’s testimony.
Seeking a way to address the problem, Tam’s father approached Kwong Kau, Choi’s former father in law.
Kwong Kau, a former police officer whom the testimony described as having connections in both legitimate and criminal circles, offered to help without charging a fee, Tam said.
The involvement of Kwong Kau brought another member of Choi’s former family into the account of Tam’s financial difficulties. The testimony also showed that the debt had consequences beyond Tam himself, as his father took steps to resolve a dispute that had affected the family.
Tam Says His Father Paid the Debt
Although Tam maintained that he did not consider himself responsible for repaying the money, he distinguished his position from simply ignoring the matter.
He told the court that he believed the debt no longer had to be paid following Suncity Group’s collapse. Nevertheless, his father ultimately settled it.
Tam admitted that neither he nor Choi had contributed to the repayment. He also acknowledged that he had not reimbursed his father for paying the debt on his behalf.
The testimony therefore addressed both the original borrowing and the eventual settlement. Tam accepted that the money had been borrowed for gambling and that his father had paid it, while maintaining his belief that he had not been obliged to repay the amount himself.
The debt formed part of the financial issues explored during cross examination. The court also heard evidence concerning Choi’s property and the outstanding borrowing secured against it.
Manhattan Hill Property Carried an Outstanding Mortgage
Tam was questioned about Choi’s Manhattan Hill property, including whether he knew that it had been mortgaged twice.
He testified that he had been unaware of the two mortgages at the time and did not know why Choi had made those arrangements.
According to Tam, he discovered the outstanding financial obligation only after Choi’s death. The property still carried a mortgage estimated at between HK$8 million and HK$9 million, he said.
His testimony distinguished what he knew while Choi was alive from what he learned later. He told the court that he had not known about the double mortgaging or the reasons behind it, and that the remaining balance became apparent to him only after her death.
The outstanding mortgage added another financial issue to the evidence heard during the trial. Alongside questions about Tam’s gambling debt and the repayment arranged by his father, the property testimony examined the financial circumstances surrounding Choi and her husband.
Trial Continues With Questions About Relationships and Finances
Wednesday’s proceedings covered several aspects of Tam’s personal and financial history, from his school friendship with Kwong to the Macau gambling debt and the mortgage on Choi’s Manhattan Hill property.
Tam rejected the defence’s allegation that he had wanted a sexual relationship with Kwong. He also explained why he had refused to repay the gambling debt, confirmed that his father eventually settled it, and said he had learned about the outstanding property mortgage only after Choi’s death.
These statements formed part of the evidence presented during cross examination in the murder and dismemberment trial. The allegations raised by the defence and Tam’s responses remain matters to be assessed through the court proceedings.
As the trial continues, what further evidence will emerge about the relationships and financial arrangements examined by the High Court?