Subsequently on the same day that both marriage certificate were issued, the first and second defendant had attended the Key Plaza Hotel, where the first victim was staying. An altercation occurred between the first victim and the first and second defendants where the first victim was knocked to the ground after being hit, punched and knocked by the first and second named defendants. The first victim on that day made a statement to the police about that incident, and the the recording that showed the incident was provided to the police.

Two weeks ago, from yesterday the first victim and Hou Yi announced the establishment of a charitable initiative for victims of domestic or intimate partner violence. While not specifically naming the first defendant, as the first defendant was the first victims only previous relations.h.i.+p, the first victim revealed certain forms of abuse that she states the first defendant inflicted on her. Given that these are tied with litigation in Australia no further comment in these proceedings will be made on this, and its accuracy. This is for another court to determine and this court has no jurisdiction.

Two weeks ago, from this date, the first victim in accordance with orders made by an Australian Court exercising Family Law jurisdiction, served on the first defendant the doc.u.ments that the first victim was ordered. The first victim served these doc.u.ments at a public charity fundraiser dinner during the pre-dinner drinks where a verbal confrontation occurred between the first victim, Hou Yi, the first defendant and second defendant. The first victim and Hou Yi left this confrontation and the venue before anything else happened.

On the subsequent Tuesday night, the first victim and Hou Yi along with the first defendant and second defendant attended a charity theatre event. The first defendant was speaking to a friend with the second defendant standing nearby when the first victim and Hou Yi approached the two defendants. The first victim told the first defendant to stop lying about events and reminded the first defendant due to the operation of Australian Law he could not talk about the Family Law proceedings. Subsequently the second defendant slapped the first victim in the face and the first defendant punched the first victim. The first victim was moved to safety, and subsequently the first victim and Hou Yi left the event.

On the following day, Wednesday, due to the number of statements provided to the police, a decision was made to formally and properly investigate the events that had been occurring between the first victim, Hou Yi, the first defendant and second defendant with consideration of charging both the first and second defendants with a.s.sault over what occurred the previous night.

Arrangements were made for the first victim and Hou Yi to speak to the police about the matter. However soon after those arrangements were made, the first and second defendants spoke to two police officers Inspector Gang and Senior Officer Fang about the matter. In speaking to these two officers, among the discussions the following information was provided

1. That the first victim was not married to Hou Yi;

2. That the first victim was avoiding cooperating with legal court orders from Australia and refusing to hand over a.s.sets the legitimately belonged to the first defendant;

3. That the first victim had committed fraud of come nature to convince both Hou Yi and Fengs Jewelers to hand over a wedding ring set and engagement ring that were intended for the first and second defendants.

The nature of the conversation, convinced the two police officers that they needed to act against the first victim, and implied that there would be some reward for both police officers. It is agreed that the first defendant and second defendant in that conversation, made false statements to the police that were investigating the events of the previous night, but never intended to formally bribe the police officers involved.

Consequently, as a result of the false statements to the police, the first victim was taken to the police station to answer police questions. Her wedding and engagement rings were removed on the basis of the statements and seized by the officers involved. Hou Yi refused to remove his wedding ring. The items alleged to have been fraudulently retained by the first victim, were handed to the lawyer Alister Nang to secure, pending the outcome of the police investigation and verification of owners.h.i.+p of the items in Australia.