The lengths some people will go to take advantage of vulnerable members of society is appalling. Today, we examine one such case from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. This episode is all about sham marriages, divorce, and illicit gains, using the case of Mr Lo-Sing Ip and Lisa Chang as an example. 

Lisa deliberately married Mr Ip in order to get property transferred into her name. She then proceeded with a divorce to ensure her desired outcome. Today, we break down the particulars of Lisa’s manipulation of an elderly gentleman (who was likely suffering from dementia) by isolating him and gaining control of his property and financial affairs. Tune in to hear about this unconscionable case, step-by-step, and find out the eventual outcome of the court proceedings!

 Key Points From This Episode:

•    Mr Ip’s background and marriage history.

•    The relationship Mr Ip had with his son who was born of his first marriage.

•    Reasons to suggest that Mr Ip suffered from cognitive impairment.

•    The entry of Lisa into Mr Ip’s life after his first marriage left him widowed.

•    How Lisa manipulated a transfer of Mr Ip’s property into her name.

•    Mr Ip’s level of understanding and sophistication irrespective of cognitive impairment.

•    The difference between joint tenancy and tenants in common.

•    Lisa’s questionable divorce proceedings and what was included in the binding financial agreement.

•    Mr Ip’s move to an aged care facility without the notification of the plaintiff.

•    How Lisa isolated Mr Ip from the plaintiff and gained control of his financial and medical affairs.

•    The amount that the lawyers involved were sued for prior to the Supreme Court hearing.

•    How Lisa procured a counselling certificate in Mr Ip’s absence.

•    Lisa’s undisclosed sale of Mr Ip’s house and her purchase of a new property.

•    The scheme to marry Mr Ip to Ms Gou, Lisa’s ex-mother-in-law.

•    The outcome of the court proceedings.

Tweetables:

 “Mr Ip was a fairly simple person. He was uneducated, wasn’t sophisticated in any means, so his level of understanding, even without any form of cognitive impairment or dementia, about various transactions will have been quite limited.” — Leah Sewell [0:08:06]

 “All of [Lisa’s] actions in obtaining the property for herself were unconscionable. They were illicit but this was not a criminal matter.” — Leah Sewell [0:25:13]

 Links Mentioned in Today’s Episode:

 Leah Sewell

3 Deadly Sins

Ip v Chiang [2021] NSWSC 822