Does anyone know more about the reasons behind Joseph Lau's auctioning off a few items in his collection (or rather, his girlfriends' collections)? Portion of it supposedly is going to charity but still....
Joseph Lau is auctioning off some of his collection?
- Thread starter viciel
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
Isn't this guy a fugitive from Macau?
He never served his actual sentence. Because there's no extradition agreement between Macau where he was found guilty of bribery plus and Hong Kong where he resides. So he basically just had to not set foot in Macau for 5 years and odd months.
I dont think any of the members on here is his financial advisor, so I doubt we will have the true answers on why he is auctioning off all this assets including these bags.
But if any one of us were his F.A., I'd hope they would have advised against bribery, escaping the sentence, and then buying precious stones in the $M right after.
I remember him and his gf at the time being frequently posted on the "asian & hermes" thread when I first joined the forum many years ago.
Something about him, and how the HK tabloids loved to photograph him and her, came off shady to me.
But if any one of us were his F.A., I'd hope they would have advised against bribery, escaping the sentence, and then buying precious stones in the $M right after.
I remember him and his gf at the time being frequently posted on the "asian & hermes" thread when I first joined the forum many years ago.
Something about him, and how the HK tabloids loved to photograph him and her, came off shady to me.
Last edited:
Is there a legal issue for anyone to buy their bags then?
Disclaimer, Not a lawyer
He only has to declare (by signing) he is the legal owner of the items for sale, and agree to Sotheby's T&C.
Sotheby's cover themselves (T&C) so buyers won't have legal recourse (to sue them).
If items were seized as 'profit from crime' they'd only go in an auction in the same way, the only difference would be the money wouldn't go to the vendor.
The auction states "Part of the sale proceeds from this auction will be donated to charity." This could be $1 and still hold true. That they don't say which charity or what % is a BIG red flag to me. Take the word 'charity' with a pinch of saccharine.
Sotheby's are acting as the agent and don't have to know who the charity/charities is/are or where the money is going, their contract is with the vendor.
Perhaps not a legal issue but a moral/ethical one.
Would one want to own property that was allegedly used with questionable money if the
buyer was aware of the circumstances?
Great point about the charity angle! Also a lot of times, these "charities" are just are way to funnel ill gotten gains.
I've done business in Asia, China in particular in the past, and there are very creative loopholes to hide bribery.
Instead of exchanging currency, people tend to use "gifts" or "dinners" that can later be exchanged for money.
Sotheby's and Christies doesn't care at all about who they deal business with, as long as they get the percentage of the final bid price.
Many countries need to look at what constitutes the term 'charity' IMO, not just in Asia.
Anyway, it's a just a warning that the phrase "Part of the sale proceeds from this auction will be donated to charity" mean very little, and should not be a sweetener to any sale nor provide reassurance as to where the majority of the proceeds go.