In its New York lawsuit against China Construction Bank (CCB) over the Vesttoo fraud, Aon’s segregated accounts company White Rock Insurance (SAC) Ltd.has raised the recent emergence of a criminal bribery case in Hong Kong and suggests this means CCB must have relevant communications and documentation that would support its own claims.Aon’s White Rock entity .That lawsuit alleges that an “inside man” at the bank had represented that letters of credit (LOC) involved in the Vesttoo fraud, linked to reinsurance deals facilitated via White Rock, were authentic.

As a result of which, White Rock claimed a minimum $140 million in damages from the bank, for the losses suffered by the company and its clients.Aon has been pursuing China Construction Bank in the courts ever since, with the bank denying its claims and calling for the case to be dismissed.One of its requests of the court has been to gain access to relevant documentation regarding the Vesttoo linked reinsurance deals.

But now, seemingly in light of the emergence of the first potential criminal case related to the Vesttoo reinsurance letter of credit (LOC) fraud, Aon’s White Rock has raised the existence of that case as supporting evidence CCB must have communications and documentation of relevance to its own lawsuit against the bank.Recall that, , to authenticate false letters of credit and collateral documentation.The former CCB manager that features in the bribery case brought by the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Chun-Yin Lam, is the very same that was highlighted in the original filing of the Aon White Rock lawsuit in New York.

As Aon had called that person a key “inside man” in the fraud, evidence that staff working at CCB had helped facilitate the use of fraudulent letters of credit (LOC) to back Vesttoo’s reinsurance deals, it’s no surprise the company has now raised this fact.In opposition to a motion that defendant China Construction Bank filed to dismiss White Rock’s amended complaint in the New York case, a new filing from the plaintiff states that it believes facts may exist that warrant jurisdictional discovery.The filing on behalf of Aon’s White Rock states that it is believed CCB may have the emails and communications of Chun-Yin Lam, the employee accused of bribery, as well as documents, documentation and meeting details related to the Vesttoo fraud-linked LOC’s and transactions.

White Rock’s filing highlights that CCB is reported to have cooperated with the Hong Kong Independent Commission in its bribery case, suggesting it may have evidence related to the named former employee’s interactions with Vesttoo staff at the time.“Such documents and communications would evidence that, in taking the actions giving rise to White Rock’s claims, Lam acted on behalf of CCBA with actual or apparent authority and his actions are thus attributed to CCBA for personal jurisdiction purposes,” the filing states.White Rock’s filing to the NY case also states that , “Accordingly, there is reason to believe that CCBA and the other Defendants are in possession of facts from Lam’s criminal proceeding and investigation, including the decision to charge Lam as CCBA’s agent, documents and communications that CCBA provided to prosecutors in advance of that decision, and facts regarding Lam’s dealings that were revealed as part of the criminal investigation.

These and similar facts are relevant to the Court’s personal jurisdiction over CCBA, including based on Lam’s acts as CCBA’s agent.” White Rock states that it does not have access to additional jurisdictional facts, including those that may underpin the bribery case in Hong Kong, and also believes that these facts could support its original claims against CCB.As a result, Aon’s White Rock believes jurisdictional discovery is warranted.Commenting on the CCB motion to dismiss the NY case, White Rock’s memorandum states, “Strikingly absent from CCBA’s Motion is any indication of accountability for the havoc it wreaked on the international insurance market.

For two years, a CCBA banker, Chun-Yin Lam, deployed the authority CCBA bestowed upon him to issue billions of dollars’ worth of LOCs as purported collateral for global reinsurance facilities.Lam used his official title and CCBA’s name, email domain, offices, telephones, seals, and letterhead for massive public transactions on a daily basis, yet CCBA claims ignorance.” As a reminder, there are other insurance and reinsurance market entities that have launched lawsuits against China Construction Bank in relation to the Vesttoo fraud saga.in New York against China Construction Bank Corporation over the Vesttoo reinsurance collateral fraud, while program services and fronting specialist Incline P&C Group also had an open lawsuit against China Construction Bank in the same district court.

.While there hasn’t been any update to it since April, it’s possible the bribery case could also result in further arguments being made.More recently, , another case that persists but with little progress made so far.

It now stands to reason these other cases will also see this new criminal bribery case in Hong Kong raised.Defendants will likely see it as evidence CCB may have more information of importance to their cases, like Aon seems to.But whether it makes a difference remains to be seen, given the challenges in suing a partially state-owned entity.

..All of our Artemis Live insurance-linked securities (ILS), catastrophe bonds and reinsurance can be accessed online.Our can be subscribed to using the typical podcast services providers, including Apple, Google, Spotify and more.