UBS AG v. LAM CHUNG YIU CHARLES AND ANOTHER

HCA 413/2021

[2024] HKCFI 3655

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 413 OF 2021

____________

BETWEEN

___________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

Introduction

1.  On 16 March 2021, the Plaintiff (“P”) issued a writ of summons with a general indorsement of claim against the 1^st Defendant (“D1”) and the 2^nd Defendant (“D2”).

2.  On 7 April 2021, D1 filed an acknowledgment of service, giving notice of his intention to defend these proceedings.

3.  On 6 October 2021, as no notice of intention to defend was given by D2, P obtained an interlocutory judgment against D2 for equitable compensation (for dishonestly assisting D1 in his breach of his duty of fidelity and good faith to P) and/or for damages to be assessed (on the basis that D1 and D2 had agreed to act in concert to cause injury to P by unlawful means).

4.  On 2 June 2021, an order by consent staying these civil proceedings against D1 was made by Master S.H. Lee as there were ongoing criminal proceedings against D1. After D1 had been convicted and sentenced in the Court of First Instance (“CFI”), the stay was lifted on 6 August 2024.

5.  On 5 September 2024, P filed the statement of claim and made an application for summary judgment against D1 by way of a summons of the same date (“Summons”) supported by affirmation evidence. On 12 November 2024, D1 filed an affidavit in opposition to the Summons.

6.  On 29 November 2024, this Court heard the Summons and reserved its Judgment to be handed down. This is the Court’s Judgment.

Background

7.  D1 and D2 were and are husband and wife.

8.  P is incorporated in Switzerland and registered as a licensed bank in Hong Kong. All of its branches worldwide, including the Hong Kong branch, operate globally under the same legal entity.

9.  At the material times, D1 was employed by P as an associate director at its Hong Kong branch and he was the head of a project to compensate clients who had been overcharged by P in previous business transactions (“Project”). For the Project, P had provisioned a sum of about US$17 million to effect refunds to about 4,300 of its clients.

10.  In November 2020, P discovered that the provision set aside for the Project had been exceeded and there were indications that some of the refunds were not paid to eligible former clients but to unconnected third parties. An internal investigation conducted by P revealed that there were at least 215 unauthorized transfers totaling US$8,120,967.16 (i.e. some HK$63.1 million) from P’s bank accounts to recipients other than its clients (“the 215 unauthorized transfers”). A full list of the 215 unauthorized transfers which was annexed to P’s statement of claim is annexed to this Judgment (“the Annex”).

11.  On 3 December 2020, D1 was arrested at the Hong Kong International Airport by the Hong Kong Police. At the time of arrest, D1 was carrying a backpack and a luggage. Inside the backpack were documents for moving his dog from Hong Kong to the United Kingdom and a transfer of residence approval letter addressed to D1 and issued by the United Kingdom’s HM Revenue & Customs. Inside the luggage he had with him 40 Rolex watches serial number tags, 60 Rolex watches green tags, bank letters in the name of D2, a boarding pass in D1’s name for a flight from Hong Kong to London, and internet banking security devices of D1’s and D2’s bank accounts.[1]

The criminal proceedings

12.  D1 was later charged in Hong Kong. He pleaded guilty before a Magistrate to 2 counts of theft and 2 counts of money laundering; and on 17 April 2023, he was committed to the CFI for sentence. On 7 November 2023, D1 confirmed his pleas and admission to a Summary of Facts (“SOF”) before DHCJ Douglas Yau (as he then was, “Judge”). He was duly convicted in the CFI of the 4 offences and given a total sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment.

13.  For the two theft offences, D1 pleaded guilty to stealing the funds in two of P’s bank accounts, being the funds involved in 46 out of the 215 unauthorized transfers as follows:-

Beneficiary	Nature/Business	No. of Payments	Amount Paid (US$)
Yow Wayne	D’s personal account	3	358,513.77
Koh Pang An	D’s personal account	2	211,067.26
FHK Times Ltd	Watch Retailer	6	242,720.62
P-Solution (HK) Ltd	Watch & handbag Retailer	5	116,123.63
Sis Kingdom	Watch & handbag Retailer	3	54,267.05
Liu Pak Man	Watch Retailer	4	102,123.96
Con Fiducia	Watch Retailer	5	217,759.07
Century Trading (Asia) Ltd	Watch Retailer	7	178,560.59
Sun Moon International Ltd	Watch Dealer	5	115,306.15
Jumbo SRL	Watch Retailer	6	278,588.54
	Total:	46	US$1,875,030.64

14.  According to the SOF, in order to perpetrate five of these unlawful transfer transactions, D1 had even changed his name at different times to Yow Wayne (“Yow”) and Koh Pang-an (“Koh”), being names that matched with those of two of P’s actual clients who needed to be compensated under the Project. D1 then opened the following bank accounts in those names, and the first five payments (US$569,581.03 in total) as set out in the table at §13 above were paid to these bank accounts created and controlled by D1:-

Bank	Holder	Opening Date
Chiyu Banking Corporation Ltd	D in the name of Yow	11 March 2020
CMB Wing Lung Bank	D in the name of Yow	21 March 2020
Nanyang Commercial Bank	D in the name of Koh	28 May 2020

15.  D1 also admitted in the SOF that the remaining 41 payments were made to various watch and/or handbag merchants for him to purchase luxurious watches and handbags and none of them were P’s clients. D1 further admitted selling 32 luxurious watches of a total value of HK$8,738,700 to a watch dealer.

16.  D1 further admitted that he had utilized P’s system in the Hong Kong office, which tracked the client details and payments, to alter the information of the rightful beneficiaries under the Project; and by altering the information, he managed to direct the 46 unauthorized payments to be made to his designated accounts.[2]

17.  In considering the appropriate sentences for the two counts of theft, the Judge held that D1 had engaged in the same methodology in stealing, exploiting his position as the project head, arranging for the moneys to be diverted to recipients of his choosing and ultimately benefiting himself; that the thefts were meticulously planned; and that the commission of the offences by D1 was calculated and carefully executed.[3]

18.  As to the first money laundering offence, D1 admitted having received in Koh’s Nanyang Commercial Bank accounts cash deposits of HK$159,500 and of US$314,067.26 from unknown sources, the Plaintiff and a watch retailer between 28 May 2020 and 30 October 2020. Those funds were swiftly withdrawn and a significant number of the remittances were made to overseas counterparties.

19.  As to the second money laundering offence, D1 admitted having received in his own HSBC multi-currency account 67 cash deposits in Hong Kong dollars, US dollars and British pounds in the total value of some HK$3.77 million from unknown sources between 13 March 2020 and 8 December 2020. This HSBC account further received 40 deposits in Hong Kong dollars and British pounds from D2’s Nanyang Commercial Bank account in the total value of some HK$4.4 million between March 2020 and November 2020. During the same period, D2’s account received 35 cash deposits from unknown sources, totaling HK$2.7 million. A substantial amount of the money deposited into D1’s HSBC account was transferred out within a relatively short period of time.

20.  In sentencing, the Judge held that the offences of theft and money laundering were all interconnected, as the money laundering would have allowed D1 to benefit from the thefts more easily and when he was overseas, given that a significant amount of the funds in the first count of money laundering were remitted to overseas counterparties.[4]

The application for summary judgment in these proceedings

21.  In these proceedings, P seeks summary judgment in relation to all of the 215 unauthorized transfers. As pleaded in the statement of claim, P’s claims are made on a number of bases, including unjust enrichment, restitution, unlawful means conspiracy and breach of employment contract or duty of fidelity and good faith.

22.  In opposition, D1 admits liability only to 46 out of the 215 unauthorized transfers (in respect of which he had pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings) but asserts that (1) P fails to show a prima facie case against him regarding the remaining 169 unauthorized transfers; (2) there are triable issues which require witnesses to be called; and (3) there are some other reasons for trial as D1 being remanded faces severe difficulty in gathering evidence.

23.  Indeed, prior to the hearing on 29 November 2024, the parties had filed a consent summons with the Court seeking an order to grant judgment (for part of the claims) in respect of the 46 transfers (involving US$1,875,030.64) out of the 215 unauthorized transfers. At the hearing, the Court made an order by consent that judgment be entered against D1 for him to give restitution and pay P the sum of US$1,875,030.64, being part of the claims herein. The parties then invited the Court to hear the application for summary judgment in respect of the remaining 169 unauthorized transfers (involving US$6,245,936.52).

24.  At the hearing, D1 did not dispute that his criminal convictions and the SOF which he had admitted in the criminal proceedings (or the admissions therein) could be used against him in these proceedings: see e.g. Asia Energy Logistic Group Ltd v Chan Tat Chee, HCA 870/2009 (unreported, 19 January 2010) at §§4-9 and 13; The Boston Consulting Group (Brasil) Ltd v Kaisheng Technology Co., Ltd and Ors. [2022] HKCFI 447 at §§11-12; and section 62 of the Evidence Ordinance, Cap. 8.

25.  In D1’s skeleton submissions, the main argument was that P could not show D1 to have been enriched by the 169 unauthorized transfers as it could not be shown that the recipients were connected to D1. At the hearing, counsel for P, Mr. Phang, confirmed that P would be content for the Court to grant summary judgment on the sole basis of D1’s breach of his employment contract (by being involved in the 169 unauthorized transfers) such that the Court would not need to go on to deal with the other bases including that of unjust enrichment. On the other hand, counsel for D1, Mr. Wong, accepted that if D1 could be shown, prima facie, to have been involved in the 169 unauthorized transfers and there was no plausible defence offered by D1, the Court could find D1 liable for damages for breach of his employment contract.

26.  It is trite law that in an application for summary judgment under Order 14, the plaintiff only has to demonstrate a “plausible and prima facie sustainable case”. The obligation falls on the defendant to condescend to particulars and show a fair probability or reasonable grounds that a bona fide defence exists: Toy Major Trading Co Ltd v Hang Shun Plastic Toys Ltd [2007] 3 HKLRD 345 at §12 per Ma CJHC (as he then was).

27.  Therefore, in the context of the present case, the primary questions that this Court has to decide are whether P could show a “plausible and prima facie sustainable case” of D1’s involvement in the other 169 unauthorized transfers; and whether D1 could show any bona fide and believable defence.

Prima facie case against D1?

28.  It was D1’s contention that his criminal convictions do not assist P for he had only pleaded guilty to 46 out of the 215 unauthorized transfers and despite thorough police investigations, the prosecution had not charged him for the remaining 169 unauthorized transfers. D1 further asserted that the recipients of the 169 transfers were different from those of the 46 transfers, and the 169 transfers also happened on various dates, not necessarily the same dates as the 46 transfers. It was further contended that there was no evidence to show any connection between D1 and the recipients of the 169 transfers. In short, D1 maintained that there was no or no sufficient evidence put forward by P to show a prima facie case that D1 was involved in the 169 unauthorized transfers.

29.  In the Court’s view, the fact that D1 was not charged with the remaining 169 transfers does not assist him in these civil proceedings. Plainly, a different standard of proof is involved in criminal proceedings, whereas in an Order 14 application, all that needs to be shown by an applicant is a “prima facie” case.

30.  In the Court’s view, the pleaded facts in the statement of claim as supported by P’s affirmation evidence do show a prima facie case of D1’s involvement in the remaining 169 transfers. In particular, NG Ching Yee (P’s executive director, “NG”) affirmed in her 2^nd Affirmation that apart from the 46 transfers for which D1 was convicted, there were another 169 transfers to online watch sellers by which D1 had used the same methods to unlawfully divert P’s funds, with the relevant CHATS records and SWIFT messages produced as exhibits. The SOF admitted by D1 in the criminal proceedings as well as the Judge’s reasons for sentence, as exhibited to NG’s 2^nd Affirmation, also support such a prima facie case against D1.

31.  In particular, the 215 transactions involved a number of merchants being paid repeatedly and they must have been chosen by the perpetrator for stealing and converting the funds. The proximity of the timing and dates of the transactions can also be the bases from which proper inferences could be drawn against D1. At the hearing, counsel for D1, Mr. Wong, accepted that.

32.  Indeed, if one looks at the dates of all the 215 unauthorized transfers as set out in the Annex and as pleaded in the statement of claim, they were effected over the period from 13 March 2020 to 27 October 2020, whereas the 46 transfers to which D1 admitted and pleaded guilty also covered and spanned over exactly the same period.

33.  Further, on a large number of the dates of those 46 admitted transfers, there were other unauthorized transfers (which were not included in the theft charges):-

Date	Transfer(s) included in the theft charges and pleaded guilty to by D1	Other transfer(s) on the same date not admitted and not included in the theft charges
13 March 2020	1 transfer	No other transfer
27 April 2020	1 transfer	No other transfer
1 June 2020	1 transfer	1 transfer
9 June 2020	1 transfer	No other transfer
23 June 2020	3 transfers	2 transfers
1 July 2020	2 transfers	1 transfer
2 July 2020	2 transfers	2 transfers
8 July 2020	1 transfer	2 transfers
16 July 2020	1 transfer	7 transfers
22 July 2020	2 transfers	2 transfers
23 July 2020	2 transfers	3 transfers
11 August 2020	4 transfers	2 transfers
13 August 2020	1 transfer	1 transfer
14 August 2020	1 transfer	1 transfer
19 August 2020	1 transfer	2 transfers
20 August 2020	1 transfer	2 transfers
28 August 2020	3 transfers	8 transfers
17 September 2020	2 transfers	12 transfers
23 September 2020	3 transfers	3 transfers
28 September 2020	2 transfers	3 transfers
29 September 2020	2 transfers	2 transfers
7 October 2020	1 transfer	6 transfers
8 October 2020	2 transfers	6 transfers
21 October 2020	2 transfers	13 transfers
27 October 2020	4 transfers	10 transfers
Total:	46 transfers	91 other transfers

34.  As can be seen from the table above, all these 91 other unauthorized transfers took place on the same dates as 43 out of the 46 transfers admitted by D1. For instance, D1 admitted that he had caused two transfers on 21 October 2020 and on that very same date, there were 13 other transfers. All these transfers must have been “meticulously planned” and “calculated and carefully executed” – as was observed by the Judge to be the case as regards the theft offences involving the 46 transfers[5]. When the other transfers took place on the same dates as most of the 46 transfers, an inference may be drawn that these 91 other transfers were also caused by D1.

35.  Further, it is more likely than not that the perpetrator would have carefully chosen and used the same merchants in order to realize the ill-gotten gains. Some of the merchants paid by these 46 plus 91 unauthorized transfers were paid again by other unauthorized transfers on other dates. An inference may be drawn that those other transfers involving the same merchants were also caused by D1, bearing in mind P’s evidence that none of the merchants were its clients. A further inference may be drawn that other unauthorized transfers that happened on the same dates as those which paid those merchants were also caused by D1:-

Merchant paid by one or more of the 46 plus 92 transfers	Same merchant paid by other transfer(s)	Total number of transfer(s) altogether on the date(s) of such other transfer(s)
PEIRCH CORP	- 1 transfer made to this merchant on 5 June 2020	- 1 transfer
AVI AND Co NY CORP	- 2 transfers made to this merchant on 17 June 2020	- 3 transfers
	- 1 transfer on 15 October 2020	- 6 transfers[6]
RICH TIME LTD	- 1 transfer made to this merchant on 9 July 2020	- 2 transfers
	- 1 transfer on 16 September 2020	- 7 transfers[7]
DRAGON MAN LTD	- 1 transfer made to this merchant on 15 July 2020	- 7 transfers[8]
MONTAUK GROUP LTD	- 1 transfer made to this merchant on 28 July 2020	- 3 transfers[9]
	- 1 transfer on 29 July 2020	- 4 transfers[10]
US MULTI TRADING INC	- 2 transfers made to this merchant on 5 August 2020	- 4 transfers
LD TIME	- 1 transfer made to this merchant on 4 September 2020	- 9 transfers[11]
	- 1 transfer on 14 October 2020	- 5 transfers[12]
SWISS MADE CORP	- 1 transfer on 8 September 2020	- 10 transfers[13]
EUREX SRL	- 2 transfers made to this merchant on 9 September 2020	- 10 transfers
XELOR BV	- 1 transfer made to this merchant on 22 September 2020	- 6 transfers
	Total:	77 other transfers

36.  Therefore, analyzing all the transactions in the above manners, inferences may be properly drawn to show that D1 was involved in causing all of the 215 unauthorized transfers:-

(i) 46 transfers which D1 admitted in the criminal proceedings;

(ii) 91 other transfers happened on the same dates as the 46 transfers;

(iii) focusing on the merchants paid by the above 46 plus 91 other transfers, some of the same merchants were paid by other transfers on other dates; and there were altogether 77 other transfers caused on such other dates;

(iv) 46 plus 91 plus 77 transfers: making a total of 214 unauthorized transfers; and

(v) The only transfer that is not included in the above 214 transfers is that to “Tombolini Alessandro Glauco” on 10 September 2020; but immediately before this transfer, on 8 and 9 September 2020, there were a total of 20 transfers which could be inferred to have been caused by D1. Seen in that light, it could be inferred that this transfer on 10 September 2020 was also caused by D1.

37.  The above inferences may be more readily drawn against D1 when seen in the context of his admissions in the criminal proceedings[14] that D1 had utilized P’s system in the Hong Kong office to alter the information of the rightful beneficiaries under the Project; and that by altering the information, D1 managed to direct 46 payments to be made to his designated accounts. When there was no suggestion in the evidence from P or D1 to show any other person’s dishonest involvement in the other 169 unauthorized transfers, it appears, prima facie, that D1 had used the same methodology in the stealing, exploiting his position as the project head, arranging for the moneys in these other 169 transfers to be diverted to recipients of his choosing and ultimately benefiting himself.[15]

38.  The Court observes that the above inferences against D1 are also supported by the affirmation evidence from several of the staff who had worked under D1 which is produced by P in these proceedings. That evidence shows that D1 was the head of the Project team who was involved in and exercised supervision at each and every stage of the workflow for processing the payment refunds, including performing the final checks for the payments.[16]

39.  In light of all of the above, D1’s submission that P cannot demonstrate a prima facie case against him to show his involvement in the other 169 transfers is simply untenable.

A bona fide defence?

40.  Turning now to the defence that D1 has offered in these proceedings as disclosed in his affirmation filed herein. In short, whilst admitting that he had no defence for the 46 transfers, D1 simply claimed that he was “not related to and did not cause the 169 other transfers (in whole or in part)”. He maintained that they could simply have been caused by others, but without suggesting who were or could have been the other perpetrators. He indicated his wish to provide the Court with evidence but asserted that because he was being remanded in custody, he had no access to the company materials (including the transfer history) and he was unable to look for and contact any witness.

41.  This Court observes that D1 has not indicated what witnesses he wishes to contact and what evidence they can give in his favour, if any. Nor has he indicated what other company materials or transfer records, if any, may support his defence and in what ways, especially when the relevant CHATS records and SWIFT messages[17] have already been filed and served as exhibits herein. The obligation is on D1 to condescend to particulars and show a fair probability or reasonable grounds that a bona fide defence exists. In the Court’s view, D1 has utterly failed to do so and his bald denial has no substance in light of all the evidence and inferences against him as mentioned above.

42.  Further, P has actually filed affirmation evidence to demonstrate that apart from the 46 transfers, D1 could be shown to have caused at least another four unauthorized transfers: D1 had bought watches with the use of the same false name of “Koh Pang An” and the purchases were shipped to the last known address of D1 and D2.[18] It is remarkable to note that D1 has made no attempt to challenge or rebut that evidence. Seen in the light of that evidence, D1’s bare assertion that he was not involved in all the other 169 transfers is clearly untrue and lack of bona fide.

43.  This Court therefore finds that D1 has failed to show any bona fide and believable defence; that there are no triable issues warranting a trial; and that there are no reasons why summary judgment should not be entered against D1 in respect of the other 169 unauthorized transfers.

Damages for breach of employment contract

44.  Counsel for D1, Mr. Wong, conceded at the hearing that if this Court finds a prima facie case that D1 was involved in the other 169 transfers and there is no plausible defence, D1 should be liable to pay damages for breach of his employment contract with P. That contract dated 20 August 2015 provides that D1 shall use his best endeavours to promote and protect the general interests and welfare of P (§1.3); and that D1 should avoid situations where his personal interests may conflict or appear to conflict with the interests of P (§10.4). By being involved in causing the 169 transfers such that funds were misappropriated out of the Project, D1 had clearly contravened those terms and others in his employment contract with P.

45.  As counsel for P, Mr. Phang, confirmed at the hearing, instead of seeking full damages to be assessed, P was content to limit the damages to the amount of funds misappropriated by way of the 169 transfers (involving a total of US$6,245,936.52). Counsel for D1, Mr. Wong, did not seek to challenge that. This Court will therefore order D1 to pay the sum of US$6,245,936.52 to P as damages.

Declaratory reliefs

46.  As mentioned in §§ 13 and 14 above, D1 admitted in criminal proceedings that he had stolen funds from P by causing 5 transfers (of US$569,581.03 in total) to be made to three bank accounts that he had opened with false names. P seeks declarations that it is the owner of and has a proprietary interest over such funds in those accounts, and that D1 is liable to account to P for the funds as a constructive trustee. Doing the fullest justice to P to which it is entitled in the circumstances of this case, the Court will grant the declarations sought[19].

47.  I therefore make the following orders:-

(1) Final judgment be entered in favour of the Plaintiff against the 1^st Defendant for the following reliefs:-

(a) A declaration that the Plaintiff is the owner of, and has a proprietary interest over, the total amount of US$569,581.03 held in or paid into the following accounts of the 1^st Defendant and/or any traceable proceeds thereof:-

(i) Account no. 039-739-2-002975-8 in the name of “Yow Wayne” maintained with Chiyu Banking Corporation Ltd;

(ii) Account no. 020-607-501-2223-5 in the name of “Yow Wayne” maintained with CMB Wing Lung Bank; and

(iii) Account no. 043-473-9-214590-3 in the name of “Koh Pang An” maintained with Nanyang Commercial Bank;

(b) A declaration that the 1^st Defendant is liable to account to the Plaintiff for the amount of US$569,581.03 as a constructive trustee;

(c) The 1^st Defendant shall, unless he has fully paid the amount of US$1,875,030.64 to the Plaintiff as required by the Order (by consent) of the Honourable Mr. Justice Tam dated 29 November 2024 (“the Order By Consent”):-

(i) Provide to the Plaintiff a full and complete account of all the assets, income, profits, interest and other benefits derived from the amount of US$569,581.03, failing which the Plaintiff do have liberty to apply for further directions on the process of account; and

(ii) Pay the amount due upon the provision or taking of the account forthwith, subject to the 1^st Defendant’s liability to pay under the Order By Consent and not exceeding the amount of US$1,875,030.64;

(d) The 1^st Defendant do pay the sum of US$6,245,936.52 to the Plaintiff;

(2) The 1^st Defendant do pay to the Plaintiff the costs of the action (and of the application by the Summons dated 5 September 2024) summarily assessed at HK$630,000.

48.  Lastly, I thank counsel acting for the parties for their assistance.

ANNEX

Summary of the 215 Unauthorized Transfers

(The 46 transfers which D1 admitted are highlighted in bold)

No.	Date	Actual Payee (Not the intended payees)	Amount (US$)
1.	13-Mar-20	YOW WAYNE	202,343.42
2.	27-Apr-20	WAYNE YOW	97,629.02
3.	01-Jun-20	BERNARD COMPANY (JEFF BERNARD)	25,868.42
4.	01-Jun-20	KOH PANG AN	149,990.76
5.	05-Jun-20	PEIRCH CORP	72,426.70
6.	09-Jun-20	SIS KINGDOM	16,427.26
7.	17-Jun-20	A.G. ENTERPRISES USA CORP	37,622.18
8.	17-Jun-20	AVI AND CO NY CORP	40,758.46
9.	17-Jun-20	AVI AND CO NY CORP	84,923.09
10.	23-Jun-20	FHK TIMES LIMITED	37,420.65
11.	23-Jun-20	JUMBO SRL	35,477.52
12.	23-Jun-20	SIS KINGDOM	14,097.69
13.	23-Jun-20	XUPES LIMITED	39,049.19
14.	23-Jun-20	XUPES LIMITED	29,636.19
15.	01-Jul-20	CON FIDUCIA	35,604.25
16.	01-Jul-20	PEIRCH CORP	23,954.69
17.	01-Jul-20	SUN MOON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED	27,799.20
18.	02-Jul-20	CON FIDUCIA	37,134.94
19.	02-Jul-20	LD TIME	28,916.66
20.	02-Jul-20	PEIRCH CORP	25,424.57
21.	02-Jul-20	SUN MOON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED	28,035.32
22.	08-Jul-20	FHK TIMES LIMITED	21,969.06
23.	08-Jul-20	RICH TIME LTD	8,529.13
24.	08-Jul-20	TALEDA SA	22,084.99
25.	09-Jul-20	RICH TIME LTD	30,647.46
26.	09-Jul-20	TALEDA SA	11,681.52
27.	15-Jul-20	C+F HANDELSKONTOR GMBH	20,254.62
28.	15-Jul-20	DRAGON MAN LTD.	20,049.93
29.	15-Jul-20	ERMA CONSULTING SA	20,289.98
30.	15-Jul-20	GIOIELLERIA DUCA SRL	20,048.04
31.	15-Jul-20	GREEN SRL	26,100.58
32.	15-Jul-20	HOUBIDOU CO. LTD.	9,529.31
33.	15-Jul-20	MJH SALES INC.	10,692.42
34.	16-Jul-20	C+F HANDELSKONTOR GMBH	17,862.28
35.	16-Jul-20	CON FIDUCIA	85,219.88
36.	16-Jul-20	DRAGON MAN LTD.	12,352.54
37.	16-Jul-20	ERMA CONSULTING SA.	14,704.44
38.	16-Jul-20	GIOIELLERIA DUCA SRL	20,283.53
39.	16-Jul-20	GREEN SRL	8,790.73
40.	16-Jul-20	HOUBIDOU CO. LTD.	15,375.67
41.	16-Jul-20	MJH SALES INC.	26,102.66
42.	22-Jul-20	AVI AND CO NY CORP	12,219.04
43.	22-Jul-20	CENTURY TRADING (ASIA) LIMITED	15,322.98
44.	22-Jul-20	LIU PAK MAN	10,676.34
45.	22-Jul-20	SPRITZ SRL	21,256.29
46.	23-Jul-20	AVI AND CO NY CORP	16,697.57
47.	23-Jul-20	CENTURY TRADING (ASIA) LIMITED	19,515.94
48.	23-Jul-20	LIU PAK MAN	6,357.62
49.	23-Jul-20	SPRITZ SRL	26,222.79
50.	23-Jul-20	US MULTI TRADING INC	13,358.59
51.	28-Jul-20	MONTAUK GROUP LTD	9,409.51
52.	28-Jul-20	XELOR BV	10,702.47
53.	28-Jul-20	ZAEGER PTY LTD	7,241.74
54.	29-Jul-20	MONTAUK GROUP LTD	7,982.53
55.	29-Jul-20	RADIAL 5 LTD	9,965.27
56.	29-Jul-20	XELOR BV	9,548.89
57.	29-Jul-20	ZAEGER PTY LTD	11,509.00
58.	05-Aug-20	US MULTI TRADING INC	53,381.22
59.	05-Aug-20	US MULTI TRADING INC	56,817.19
60.	05-Aug-20	XUPES LTD USD	36,720.74
61.	05-Aug-20	XUPES LTD USD	9,215.61
62.	11-Aug-20	LD TIME	24,300.95
63.	11-Aug-20	LD TIME	9,255.96
64.	11-Aug-20	P-SOLUTION (HK) LTD	6,149.86
65.	11-Aug-20	P-SOLUTION (HK) LTD	11,316.31
66.	11-Aug-20	SUN MOON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED	24,075.56
67.	11-Aug-20	SUN MOON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED	15,770.51
68.	13-Aug-20	ERMA CONSULTING SA	7,700.01
69.	13-Aug-20	FHK TIMES LTD	61,399.89
70.	14-Aug-20	ERMA CONSULTING SA	21,610.15
71.	14-Aug-20	WAYNE YOW	58,541.33
72.	19-Aug-20	CENTURY TRADING (ASIA) LIMITED	18,874.58
73.	19-Aug-20	MATERIAL GOOD NY	32,458.69
74.	19-Aug-20	WGWCO INC	41,282.74
75.	20-Aug-20	CENTURY TRADING (ASIA) LIMITED	5,845.44
76.	20-Aug-20	MATERIAL GOOD NY	57,541.31
77.	20-Aug-20	WGWCO INC	41,717.26
78.	28-Aug-20	AVI AND CO NY CORP	139,411.77
79.	28-Aug-20	AVI AND CO NY CORP	35,588.23
80.	28-Aug-20	ELITA GROUP PTY LTD	38,698.71
81.	28-Aug-20	GREEN S.R.L.	25,400.50
82.	28-Aug-20	GREEN S.R.L.	25,522.50
83.	28-Aug-20	HOUBIDOU CO., LTD	51,328.67
84.	28-Aug-20	HOUBIDOU CO., LTD.	52,435.33
85.	28-Aug-20	JUMBO SRL	51,346.56
86.	28-Aug-20	JUMBO SRL	51,777.54
87.	28-Aug-20	KOH PANG AN	61,076.50
88.	28-Aug-20	TIME PASSION MIAMI, INC	34,198.95
89.	04-Sep-20	C+F HANDELSKONTOR GMBH	43,252.11
90.	04-Sep-20	GIOIELLERIA DUCA SRL	35,411.77
91.	04-Sep-20	GRECO SRL	34,311.77
92.	04-Sep-20	LD TIME	41,343.22
93.	04-Sep-20	PREMIER TIME	30,121.69
94.	04-Sep-20	PULZO GMBH + CO. KG	33,124.45
95.	04-Sep-20	SPRITZ SRL	29,199.98
96.	04-Sep-20	SWISS MADE CORP	37,887.36
97.	04-Sep-20	TALEDA SA	34,211.67
98.	08-Sep-20	C+F HANDELSKONTOR GMBH	42,447.89
99.	08-Sep-20	ELITA GROUP PTY LTD	57,599.81
100.	08-Sep-20	ERMA CONSULTING SA	53,249.88
101.	08-Sep-20	GIOIELLERIA DUCA SRL	26,088.23
102.	08-Sep-20	GRECO SRL	34,788.23
103.	08-Sep-20	LD TIME	41,056.78
104.	08-Sep-20	PREMIER TIME	30,078.31
105.	08-Sep-20	PULZO GMBH + CO. KG	33,125.55
106.	08-Sep-20	SWISS MADE CORP	37,307.64
107.	08-Sep-20	TALEDA SA	42,788.33
108.	09-Sep-20	CAVOUR OROLOGI SRL	49,857.21
109.	09-Sep-20	CAVOUR OROLOGI SRL	49,942.79
110.	09-Sep-20	EUREX SRL	47,518.64
111.	09-Sep-20	EUREX SRL	37,481.36
112.	09-Sep-20	INEICHEN ZURICH AG	46,013.29
113.	09-Sep-20	MS RIVIERA SARL	39,547.96
114.	09-Sep-20	MS RIVIERA SARL	38,852.04
115.	09-Sep-20	PEIRCH CORP	36,998.58
116.	09-Sep-20	PURE PRESTIGE LTD	49,599.87
117.	09-Sep-20	TRADELUXE UHRENHANDELS GMBH	58,675.95
118.	10-Sep-20	TOMBOLINI ALESSANDRO GLAUCO	49,798.89
119.	16-Sep-20	BRANDIZZI SRL	43,721.07
120.	16-Sep-20	DIAMOND LAKE BVBA	27,582.28
121.	16-Sep-20	JONATHAN TU	33,356.75
122.	16-Sep-20	KAGIYA INC.	27,532.01
123.	16-Sep-20	MANU 91 SRL	23,693.64
124.	16-Sep-20	MONTAUK GROUP LTD	40,098.73
125.	16-Sep-20	RICH TIME LTD	27,178.88
126.	17-Sep-20	AD INVESTMENTS BV	37,319.62
127.	17-Sep-20	AVI + CO	23,997.28
128.	17-Sep-20	BRANDIZZI SRL	43,278.93
129.	17-Sep-20	DIAMOND LAKE BVBA	30,467.13
130.	17-Sep-20	INEICHEN ZURICH AG	44,498.26
131.	17-Sep-20	JONATHAN TU	33,443.25
132.	17-Sep-20	JUMBO SRL	47,698.55
133.	17-Sep-20	MONTAUK GROUP LTD	40,091.27
134.	17-Sep-20	PREMIER TIME	43,299.12
135.	17-Sep-20	P-SOLUTION (HK) LTD	31,534.41
136.	17-Sep-20	RICH TIME LTD	27,021.12
137.	17-Sep-20	TIME PASSION MIAMI, INC	54,198.55
138.	17-Sep-20	TRADELUXE UHRENHANDELS GMBH	46,498.56
139.	17-Sep-20	TYL (ASIA) LTD	34,125.20
140.	22-Sep-20	DRAGON MAN LTD	35,898.74
141.	22-Sep-20	EMRUSA LTD	23,547.89
142.	22-Sep-20	MANU 91 SRL	37,998.73
143.	22-Sep-20	ONASSETS SRL	28,995.46
144.	22-Sep-20	PEIRCH CORP	53,001.42
145.	22-Sep-20	XELOR BV	30,751.33
146.	23-Sep-20	AVI + CO. NY CORP	24,002.72
147.	23-Sep-20	JUMBO SRL	46,498.56
148.	23-Sep-20	P-SOLUTION (HK) LTD	28,025.60
149.	23-Sep-20	SIS KINGDOM	23,742.10
150.	23-Sep-20	TYL (ASIA) LTD	37,498.21
151.	23-Sep-20	XELOR BV	30,748.67
152.	28-Sep-20	CENTURY TRADING (ASIA) LIMITED	40,937.28
153.	28-Sep-20	FHK TIMES LIMITED	37,314.58
154.	28-Sep-20	GIOIELLERIA B. S.R.L.	27,498.21
155.	28-Sep-20	SPRITZ SRL	49,298.56
156.	28-Sep-20	US MULTI TRADING INC	150,426.16
157.	29-Sep-20	CENTURY TRADING (ASIA) LIMITED	41,062.72
158.	29-Sep-20	FHK TIMES LIMITED	37,329.42
159.	29-Sep-20	GIOIELLERIA B. S.R.L.	27,501.79
160.	29-Sep-20	US MULTI TRADING INC	53,223.84
161.	07-Oct-20	CON FIDUCIA	29,857.86
162.	07-Oct-20	DRAGON MAN LIMITED	39,501.26
163.	07-Oct-20	ELITA GROUP PTY LTD	50,637.53
164.	07-Oct-20	EMRUSA LTD.	56,949.58
165.	07-Oct-20	SPRITZ SRL	54,002.56
166.	07-Oct-20	WGWCO INC	43,532.79
167.	07-Oct-20	XUPES LTD USD	43,598.35
168.	08-Oct-20	AVI + CO. NY CORP	42,250.16
169.	08-Oct-20	CON FIDUCIA	29,942.14
170.	08-Oct-20	ELITA GROUP PTY LTD	50,562.47
171.	08-Oct-20	JUMBO S.R.L.	45,789.81
172.	08-Oct-20	UNLIMITED SRLS	43,498.67
173.	08-Oct-20	WGWCO INC	43,267.21
174.	08-Oct-20	XELOR BV	25,448.45
175.	08-Oct-20	XUPES LTD USD	43,701.65
176.	14-Oct-20	C+F HANDELSKONTOR GMBH	41,727.68
177.	14-Oct-20	DREYFUSS, MAYET SA	41,501.89
178.	14-Oct-20	GINZO CORPORATION	55,001.25
179.	14-Oct-20	LD TIME	42,971.54
180.	14-Oct-20	MANU 91 SRL	24,998.51
181.	15-Oct-20	AVI + CO. NY CORP	42,249.84
182.	15-Oct-20	C+F HANDELSKONTOR GMBH	39,897.89
183.	15-Oct-20	DREYFUSS, MAYET SA	34,998.11
184.	15-Oct-20	ERMA CONSULTING SA	52,497.56
185.	15-Oct-20	GINZO CORPORATION	54,998.75
186.	15-Oct-20	LD TIME	43,028.46
187.	21-Oct-20	BERNARD COMPANY (JEFF BERNARD)	34,250.01
188.	21-Oct-20	CENTURY TRADING (ASIA) LIMITED	37,001.65
189.	21-Oct-20	DAVIDSW LLC	123,026.46
190.	21-Oct-20	DAVIDSW LLC	59,973.54
191.	21-Oct-20	EMRUSA LTD.	35,998.76
192.	21-Oct-20	EUREX SRL	38,546.89
193.	21-Oct-20	EUREX SRL	38,453.11
194.	21-Oct-20	FHK TIMES LTD	47,287.02
195.	21-Oct-20	GREEN S.R.L.	57,562.64
196.	21-Oct-20	GREEN S.R.L.	57,547.36
197.	21-Oct-20	SWISS MADE CORP	42,498.33
198.	21-Oct-20	SWISS MADE CORP	42,501.67
199.	21-Oct-20	TYL (ASIA) LTD	30,801.56
200.	21-Oct-20	WITH WATCH, LTD.	44,012.67
201.	21-Oct-20	WITH WATCH, LTD.	44,056.23
202.	27-Oct-20	BRANDIZZI SRL	42,501.57
203.	27-Oct-20	DYNR LIMITED	45,498.56
204.	27-Oct-20	ERMA CONSULTING SA	39,001.48
205.	27-Oct-20	GIOIELLERIA DUCA SRL	30,528.19
206.	27-Oct-20	GIOIELLERIA DUCA SRL	30,471.81
207.	27-Oct-20	HOUBIDOU CO., LTD.	41,702.33
208.	27-Oct-20	JONATHAN TU	45,503.76
209.	27-Oct-20	LIU PAK MAN	42,092.85
210.	27-Oct-20	LIU PAK MAN	42,997.15
211.	27-Oct-20	MONTAUK GROUP LTD	41,221.59
212.	27-Oct-20	PEIRCH CORP	38,025.68
213.	27-Oct-20	P-SOLUTION (HK) LTD	39,097.45
214.	27-Oct-20	SUN MOON INTERNATIONAL LIMITED	19,625.56
215.	27-Oct-20	TALEDA SA	43,295.37
		TOTAL:	US$8,120,967.16