In a case intertwining toxic loans, a brutal murder, and a court-ordered execution in China, amid the transnational flow of millions into Vancouver’s luxury real estate market, two families are locked in a legal battle over at least five high-end homes in areas of the city reshaped by decades of murky capital flight funneled through underground transfers into Canada’s West Coast.

The plaintiffs’ case, which initially focused on at least eight properties—now reduced to five—alleges that “many millions” worth of real estate was purchased with proceeds from unpaid loans in China and fraudulent transfers into Vancouver real estate.

On November 21, the Supreme Court of British Columbia delivered a procedural ruling allowing the six-year-long Canadian court battle, which includes sordid details such as the slaying of the lender family patriarch in China by the borrower, the now-deceased Long Ni, to continue.

Mr. Ni had promised the lender and his family high returns—up to 50 percent per annum—for providing him funds to invest in Chinese coal mines, the filings say.

Before his death, Changbin Yang, a 54-year-old businessman, had extended two series of loans to Mr. Ni, neither of which had been repaid. The first series, predating 2014, totaled approximately $100 million CAD, including interest. The second involved two loans in April 2017 of about $6 million CAD.

A key detail emerged from a Chinese court ruling in Hubei province. It said Mr. Yang’s claim for massive debt repayments stemmed from a series of promissory notes, culminating in a master promissory note “issued by Mr. Ni to Mr. Yang dated April 8, 2017, three months before Mr. Yang was murdered.”

On July 25, 2017, Mr. Yang was murdered in China at Mr. Ni’s behest. Following the murder, Mr. Ni was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to death by the Chinese courts. After exhausting all appeals, he was executed in 2020.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are five relatives of Mr. Yang, including his wife, Ms. Liu, and various other family members. Most are permanent residents of Canada living in China. They allege that the murderer’s family are “sitting on property in Vancouver worth many millions of dollars,” the November 2024 B.C. Supreme Court ruling says.

The plaintiffs are seeking judgment against all three defendants—Mr. Ni (now deceased), his wife, Ms. Chen, and his daughter, Ms. Ni—for debt, conversion, and unjust enrichment amounting to approximately $113.5 million CAD.

But Mr. Ni’s family, now living in Vancouver, denies financial ties to the executed borrower and asserts that the court battle is preventing them from selling some of their Canadian properties.

“Ms. Chen and Ms. Ni filed a joint response to the civil claim,” the procedural ruling states, in which “they deny any involvement in, or even knowledge of, the financial transactions between Mr. Yang and Mr. Ni. They plead the allegations of wrongdoing against them ‘are fabrications from start to finish.'”

Filings in the case detail the circumstances under which the murderer’s family settled in Vancouver, apparently four years after Mr. Ni started drawing on loans from his subsequent victim.

In her affidavit dated September 13, 2024, the murderer’s wife described how the family moved to Vancouver in 2011 after she obtained permanent resident status the previous year. She and her husband purchased their matrimonial home on West 33rd Avenue in December 2010 and moved in by March 2011. While Mr. Ni continued working in China, he visited his family in Canada several times a year.

Ms. Chen described their marriage as “a typical relationship in that part of China,” stating that she was a stay-at-home mother while her husband was the family’s breadwinner. She claimed to be aware only in a general sense of what her husband did for a living and, in accordance with her culture, would not “pry into his business affairs.” Ms. Chen also detailed purchasing two rental properties in 2011—on Granville Street and West King Edward Avenue—using money that her husband earned.

The murderer, Mr. Ni, was alive when the lawsuit was initiated and filed a “bare-bones” Response to Civil Claim in December 2018. Following his execution, his counsel withdrew, leaving Ms. Chen and Ms. Ni to face the allegations alone.

Initially, the plaintiffs’ claim targeted “at least” eight properties in Vancouver and Burnaby. They specifically alleged that each of these properties had been purchased by Mr. Ni with the loan proceeds from Mr. Yang and registered, either at the time of purchase or later, in the name of his wife or daughter. However, as the case progressed, doubts arose regarding the true ownership of three properties. The plaintiffs amended their claim to focus on five properties, refining their allegations.

The lawsuit now centers on five properties located across Vancouver’s most exclusive neighborhoods, including Shaughnessy, Kitsilano, Kerrisdale, and West Point Grey—areas renowned for their affluence and skyrocketing home prices.

Notably, West Point Grey is the riding of B.C. Premier David Eby and the neighborhood where Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau once taught at a private school before entering Liberal Party politics. The plaintiffs allege they have traced funds from Mr. Ni’s business activities and alleged crimes in China to these properties.

Commenting on his sympathy toward the plaintiffs—despite long procedural delays in their case—in November 2024, Supreme Court Justice Kent wrote, “The plaintiffs are victims of a horrific crime committed by Mr. Ni.”

Addressing the defendants’ claims of ignorance regarding the murderer’s business activities in Chinese mining, he added, “Although Ms. Chen and Ms. Ni testify in their affidavits that they had no knowledge of Mr. Ni’s business affairs, they do not deny that the money used to purchase the properties registered in their name was supplied by Mr. Ni from his business activities in China.”

Travel restrictions due to the COVID-19 pandemic added another layer of complexity. Ms. Liu pointed out that Mr. Ni’s incarceration in China meant he was unable to testify in the British Columbia proceedings, although his testimony was available for the Chinese litigation. She also noted that in 2022, with China’s borders closed, the plaintiffs were uncertain whether they could travel to Canada for the trial.

According to Ms. Liu, the plaintiffs had information suggesting that Mr. Ni had used the loaned funds to invest in coal mines in China. They hoped to enforce the Chinese judgment against these assets before pursuing real estate recovery in Canada.

This case, far from finished, is representative of numerous similar legal battles over Vancouver property, characterized by complex transnational loan arrangements, frequently linked to underground banking and opaque business dealings in China. It underscores the challenges of Canadian courts in mediating massive property dealings involving allegations of transnational financial fraud, sometimes intertwined with violent crime and debt enforcement battles.

As Canada grapples with a housing affordability crisis—issues The Bureau’s investigations suggest are partly linked to international underground banking networks involving China and Middle Eastern states—this case seems emblematic of systemic challenges extending far beyond the dispute between the families of the murdered lender Mr. Yang and the executed borrower Mr. Ni.

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

Outgoing President Joe Biden issued a sweeping pardon Sunday evening to his troubled son Hunter for any known or unknown crimes committed over the span of a decade after repeatedly denying he would do so.

For years, the Biden family has been dogged by allegations of personal corruption and influence peddling. During the Obama years, the former vice president infamously boasted that he facilitated the firing of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who had been investigating energy company Burisma Holdings (on whose board Hunter served despite lacking experience in the energy industry), by threatening to withhold a billion-dollar loan from the U.S. to Ukraine. Defenders claim that the move was about Shokin not prosecuting corruption aggressively enough, but critics suggest it was about Shokin potentially getting too close to Burisma and, by extension, Hunter.

In the months before the 2020 presidential election, the New York Post released a series of bombshell reports about a laptop belonging to Hunter that was delivered to and abandoned at a Delaware computer repair shop and contained scores of emails and texts detailing the Biden family’s international business activities, which exploited Joe’s political office by offering access to the highest levels of the federal government and the various worldwide connections made through that office. The story was initially maligned as “disinformation” but eventually acknowledged as real long after Biden was safely elected.

Earlier this year, Hunter was convicted on multiple felony counts for tax evasion and illegally purchasing a gun while under the influence of drugs, with sentencing slated for sometime this month. His father rendered sentencing moot over the weekend, however, by formally granting Hunter a “Full and Unconditional Pardon” for federal offenses “which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 1, 2014 through December 1, 2024.”

The president insisted that he kept his word to “not interfere with the Justice Department’s decision-making,” but maintained that Hunter “was singled out only because he is my son – and that is wrong. There has been an effort to break Hunter – who has been 5 1/2 years sober, even in the face of unrelenting attacks and selective prosecution. In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough.”

The move, which not only saves Hunter from whatever sentence he might have received but also helps protect the president himself from future convictions against the son leading to legal jeopardy for the father, directly contradicts numerous denials by Biden and White House representatives that Hunter would be pardoned.

In a June ABC News interview, Biden answered “yes” that he would accept the jury verdict and that he had ruled out pardoning his son. “I’m extremely proud of my son Hunter. He has overcome an addiction. He is one of the brightest, most decent men I know. I abide by the jury decision. I will do that, and I will not pardon him,” he said at a press conference a week later. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre repeatedly said “no” to the pardon question, including last month after Donald Trump won his return to the presidency.

As recently as November 26, Senior Deputy Press Secretary Andrew Bates reiterated Biden’s past denials on the subject, stating, “The president has spoken to this (…) I don’t have anything idea (sic) to add to what he’s said already.”

“Does the Pardon given by Joe to Hunter include the J-6 Hostages, who have now been imprisoned for years?” Trump reacted on Truth Social. “Such an abuse and miscarriage of Justice!”

“The pardon power was written in absolute terms, and a president can even, in my view, pardon himself. However, what is constitutional is not necessarily ethical or right,” George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley wrote. “This is one of the most disgraceful pardons even in the checkered history of presidential pardons. President Biden has lied to cover up a corruption scandal that reportedly brought his family millions in raw influence peddling. His portrayal of his son as a victim stands in sharp contrast to the sense of immunity and power conveyed by Hunter in his dealings.”