Serial rapist Zou Zhenhao sentenced to life imprisonment in UK
Three of Zou's victims read testimonies in court ahead of his sentencing, describing their enduring trauma, feelings of powerlessness and mental health struggles.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNA
6 hours ago
- CNA
Head of China's world-famous Buddhist sanctuary Shaolin Temple under criminal investigation
The abbot of China's famous Shaolin Temple is under investigation for criminal offences including embezzling project funds and temple assets, according to a statement released by the Buddhist sanctuary on Sunday (Jun 27). Shi Yongxin, head of what is one of the most famous Buddhist monasteries in the world, is suspected of seriously violating Buddhist precepts and is currently under joint investigation by multiple departments, the statement added. The temple also accused Shi of maintaining improper relationships with multiple women for a long time and having illegitimate children, and promised to release more details to the public in a timely manner. Shaolin Temple, established more than 1,500 years ago in central China's Henan province, is the birthplace of Zen or Chan Buddhism and a Unesco World Heritage site. The renowned monastic institution set among the Songshan Mountains is also recognised as the cradle of Shaolin kung fu. Shi, 60, is one of China's most well-known monks and became head of the Shaolin Temple in 1999. The MBA degree-holder earned the nickname of 'CEO monk' because of his excessive commercialisation of the temple's heritage and influence. In 2006, he was criticised for accepting a luxury car from the local government in recognition of his contribution to tourism. No stranger to controversy, Shi was also suspected of involvement in fraud and sexual misconduct 10 years ago. In March 2015, he and the temple were criticised for their plan to build a US$297 million hotel complex in Australia, which would include a temple, a live-in kung fu academy, and a golf course. In July of that year, he was accused by a former disciple of fathering several children out of wedlock and of embezzling funds. Henan provincial religious authorities dropped the charges in 2017 citing insufficient evidence. Shi has also served as president of the Henan Provincial Buddhist Association since 1998 and was a deputy to the National People's Congress from 1998 to 2018. News of the investigation into Shi was trending on Chinese social media platform Weibo on Sunday. Rumours surrounding his whereabouts had in fact gained traction since Saturday, when unverified social media posts claimed he had been taken away for investigation. Shi has had an active Weibo account since 2018 – averaging 1.5 posts per day and attracting over 870,000 followers. But he has not posted anything since Thursday. According to a Jul 8 post on the Shaolin Temple's official website, Shi's last public appearance was when he attended a meeting of monks the previous day. Chinese newspaper Economic Observer reported that Shi had been taken away on Friday by police in Xinxiang, an industrial city in northern Henan. Shi has faced significant criticism from both Buddhist and martial arts communities for transforming the Shaolin Temple into a commercial enterprise and operating it much like a modern business during his nearly three decades as abbot, with interests spanning publishing, film and television and medicine. Under his management, Shaolin has also expanded globally, establishing more than 50 'Shaolin Cultural Centres' overseas. Shi is currently associated with eight institutions, according to business information inquiry website Qichacha. Three of them are still operational, including Shaolin Temple, while five companies have already been deregistered. In 2010, the historic architectural complex including the Shaolin Temple was officially added to the Unesco World Cultural Heritage List.
Straits Times
a day ago
- Straits Times
US business delegation to visit China, SCMP says
Find out what's new on ST website and app. Both Washington and Beijing are working to secure a visit to China by the US president in 2025 BEIJING – A high-level delegation from the US-China Business Council will visit China this week and is expected to meet senior Chinese officials, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported on July 27, citing two sources familiar with the matter. The delegation will be led by FedEx Chief Executive Rajesh Subramaniam, the council's board chair, and is expected to include Boeing executives and USCBC President Sean Stein, the report added. Reuters could not immediately verify the report. 'They are expected to meet with Chinese officials - potentially to revive business discussions,' a source told the SCMP. Both sides are also working to secure a visit to China by the US president in 2025 , the SCMP report said. The council did not respond immediately to a request for comment. The visit coincides with the latest round of US-China trade negotiations in Sweden, where China's Vice-Premier He Lifeng is meeting US officials over July 27 to 30 for a new round of economic and trade talks. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Singapore Car that fell into Tanjong Katong Road South sinkhole removed; road remains closed for repairs Singapore Workers used nylon rope to rescue driver of car that fell into Tanjong Katong Road sinkhole Asia Thai-Cambodia border shelling continues despite Trump's ceasefire call Singapore PAP has to retain its position for S'pore to keep doing well: SM Lee Asia S'porean trainee doctor in Melbourne arrested for allegedly filming colleagues in toilets since 2021 Singapore HSA will not trace vape users who throw away e-vaporisers in disposal bins at 23 CCs Singapore Mum at 15: More teens in Singapore gave birth in 2024 Business Already owning 5 properties, woman wanted elderly dad's 4 homes China faces an Aug 12 deadline to reach a durable deal with the White House or risk higher US tariffs. REUTERS
New Paper
a day ago
- New Paper
Woman with 5 properties wanted elderly dad's 4 homes
A real estate tycoon who liked to buy property for his children became entangled in a bitter lawsuit when one of his daughters ironically claimed that she was a co-owner of his own investment properties. The 90-year-old businessman, who is illiterate, got caught up in this dispute only because he wanted to use the proceeds from the sale of four investment properties to buy a home for a grandson. It was then that he discovered that he was not the sole owner of these properties. His youngest daughter, who helped him with the paperwork for the purchase of the homes for around $11 million in all between 2004 and 2018, had also inserted her name as a co-owner. This was on top of the five homes she already owned in her own name. To make matters worse, the daughter objected to the sale, claiming that all four homes, which are likely to be worth a lot more today, were hers as they were gifts from her father. The elderly man was so upset that he sued his daughter to reclaim the properties. He related his case in the Hokkien dialect and struck High Court Judge Choo Han Teck as a credible witness who testified without embellishment or deception. Justice Choo not only found that the man had bought the four properties for himself as investments, but he also believed his claim that his daughter had taken advantage of his inability to read by putting her name on the title deeds. The daughter argued that her name was included as a co-owner because her father had intended to give her these properties. But this claim did not gel with her father's practice of buying properties for each of his six children in their own names. Indeed, this daughter had five properties purchased in her name by her father, of which three have since been sold. "That exposes the flaw in (her) contention that the (father) gave the four properties to her as joint tenant," Justice Choo added. "Were that his intention, he would have given them to her in her sole name, just as he did with those five properties and all the ones he gave to his other children." So he ruled that the four disputed properties were solely owned by the father and that his daughter was merely holding them for him. He also gave the order to sell the four properties according to the father's wishes. Justice Choo said: "The defendant describes herself as a filial daughter. It is a description open to debate, depending on whether one thinks that a filial child would surrender to the parents what her parents want, regardless of whether the child thinks it fair or deserving." But this was a "philosophical issue", and the father did not need extrajudicial considerations to bolster his case because he managed to prove his claim adequately. The evidence suggested that the family was a "close-knit" one until the father chose to make more gifts by selling his own properties. "Even the tapestry of close-knit families can be unravelled by greed," Justice Choo noted. Here are three other observations from the judge that all joint property owners should know. Records of transactions It goes without saying that the person who can produce all the important documents has a much higher chance of winning a case. After all, not many people can recollect in detail transactions that took place years or even decades ago. There are documents aplenty in this case as the father, being illiterate, had relied on his youngest daughter to act as his personal assistant for all his property purchases. But he disputed that he had intended to have a co-owner, because he could give a vivid description of the sequence of how he ended up buying the four homes as investments for himself. He told his daughter to take care of the legal documentation and the mortgage as he was "too old to procure a mortgage". The daughter argued that there was no way that her father was in the dark about the joint ownership as they had owned these properties for many years. But the father maintained that he did not know that she had inserted her name in the documents as he could not read. Justice Choo believed the father, given that he had selected the properties and, once the terms were acceptable, had bought them. "The documentation for each property was done only once, and thereafter was kept away. The (father) had no interest in checking documents he could not read, and it was the (daughter who) kept both the office and personal records for him," the judge added. Past transactions matter Judges often scrutinise the past transactions of the parties since their conduct could shed light on their intention. In this case, the father had been helping all his children to buy properties in their sole names as gifts to them. While the daughter was not very forthcoming about being the beneficiary of such gifts, she conceded during questioning by her father's lawyer that there were five properties that were bought in her sole name. Justice Choo noted that such past transactions of buying property for the children in their sole names showed that the father did not have a practice of naming co-owners for homes he intended to give away. So it could not be true that the father had intended to give away the four properties that he had picked himself by adding his daughter as a joint owner. Moreover, he had paid for everything and this included the deposits, mortgage payments and stamp duties. There was no evidence that the daughter had contributed to the purchase of these properties. The parties' conduct If the claim itself is not convincing, getting more people to repeat the same thing will certainly not get you very far. In this case, the daughter appeared guarded and evaded answering questions directly many a time regarding her claim over her father's properties. So she gathered four of her siblings to support her case that their father had intended to give the properties to her as a joint owner. But Justice Choo found their testimonies unhelpful because they repeated each other's words "in a concerted effort to press home a point in which they had no personal knowledge". Not surprisingly, this strategy backfired because it led the judge to find the daughter's case was not convincing. This was especially so since she did not stake her claim to ownership on the properties when her father first informed her of his decision to sell the real estate in 2019. The judge noted that she was probably caught unprepared then, and had no time to fabricate her present claim that her father had bought the properties for her. He added that her conduct and her testimony in court left him with the clear impression that having persuaded the father to secure the mortgage in their joint names, the natural consequence of registering the property similarly in their joint names became naturally advantageous to her because of the father's age. "I am of the view that she was prepared to inherit the entire property through the right of survivorship. The (father's) decision to sell the properties spoilt (her) plans," Justice Choo added. What this means is that it often does not pay to stake claims on assets that are not yours because the law always has a way to deny these and return the assets to the rightful owners.
