Alexander Wong denies killing dumpling bar owner Yoke Onn ‘Vincent’ Chi

A dumpling bar owner, allegedly killed by a jilted husband, was was so brutally beaten that his own son didn’t recognise him.

Popular China Bar owner Vincent Chi was found dead in his Templestowe Lower home in 2020.

A dumpling bar owner found dead by his son was so brutally beaten that his boy didn’t recognise him, instead running past his body to search their home as he screamed out, “dad”.

Shen Chi had driven from work at Mt Buller to spend time with his father, Yoke Onn ‘Vincent’ Chi, 56, when he arrived at the family’s Templestowe Lower home to find the front door ajar, on January 31, 2020.

But when he walked through the door, he told the Supreme Court he saw a person lying on the floor and “lots of blood everywhere”.

“I couldn’t depict that it was my dad’s face,” he told the court on Thursday.

“I couldn’t believe - just called out ‘dad’ ... thinking my dad might be out the back.”

The then-25-year-old ran to the living room, around the house “trying to see where my dad was”.

But then he realised the man in the hallway was wearing his father’s black China Bar polo shirt uniform, and called triple-0.

“I sort of shook him, tried to do CPR on him but it was too late.”

Mr Chi’s children Shen and Ella gave evidence on Thursday in the murder trial of the man accused of killing their father, Alexander Wong.

Police initially believed Mr Chi’s death was the result of a burglary gone wrong, with the China Bar’s daily cash takings, his wallet and iPad missing.

But prosecutors now argue the extent of his injuries - caused by a dozen blows to the face - proved it was a “crime of passion”, one they say was committed by Mr Wong, whose estranged wife Penny Chung worked for Mr Chi.

Mr Chi had taken over the popular restaurant at Northland Shopping Centre in about 2017, with the chain owned and run by his brother Kevin.

Ms Chung and Mr Chi had a close relationship, and she moved in with the victim in the months before his death upon learning her husband, Mr Wong, was having an affair with a woman called Cherry.

Shen told the court his father had mentioned a “verbal” he had with Mr Wong about two weeks before he died.

During this incident on January 17, his father said they were supposed to have a “farewell gathering” for Ms Chung, who was moving back to Malaysia the next day due to her husband’s affair.

But instead, Mr Wong picked her up from work and drove her to Mr Chi’s house to collect her possessions.

“He said that Alex walked out of the car, acted a bit aggressive and wanted to fight him,” Shen said.

The prosecution allege that Mr Wong became angered that the pair continued to talk after Ms Chung moved back to Malaysia, and that 13 days later he broke into Mr Chi’s house and lay in wait with a plasterer’s mallet for him to return from work.

Shen told the court that the family always left the back door unlocked, which was only accessible through a closed double-door garage, so the family could access the home without a key.

Asked whether there were ever security concerns that others could get into the house, he said: “It never happened.”

The court earlier heard claims that someone could have planted a bloodied glove outside Mr Wong’s house hours after the murder.

Seven hours after Mr Chi body was found, police spoke to Mr Wong at his Heidelberg West home, where a bloodied black glove was found on the ground next to his car.

It was the same type of glove purchased by Mr Wong on his Costco membership 12 days earlier – a day after his wife Penny left.

On the second day of his Supreme Court trial on Wednesday, defence barrister James McQuillan asked, “did someone put the glove there” or “did someone put blood on the glove that was already there?”

Mr Chi died in his Templestowe Lower. Picture: Josie Hayden

The jury was shown footage of the grisly crime scene, showing Mr Chi’s battered body lying in a pool of blood in the entry hall of his house, and around the corner in the hallway, his dentures, glasses and bags strewn on the floor.

Blood was splattered up onto the ceiling and walls, with criss-cross footprints around the victim.

“It’s a bloody murder that results in blood everywhere at the scene,” said Mr McQuillan, who noted the Crown’s theory that after the killing, police believed his client travelled back home, where he ate McDonalds with his housemate.

But Mr McQuillan said “police did not find one trace of blood in his car”, questioning how he could have been at such a bloodied scene and not left any traces in his vehicle.

“There’s no blood found on any of his clothing, in his house or anywhere else,” he said.

“If you accept the Crown case … he is a criminal mastermind – he must be, to carry all that out.”

Mr Chi’s stolen wallet, iPad, a bag with the cash takings from his restaurant, and the murder weapon have never been found.

The court earlier heard Mr Wong’s DNA was found inside Mr Chi’s jeans pocket, from where the Crown alleged his wallet was stolen, while the victim’s DNA was on a towel at the accused killer’s home.

But Mr McQuillan said there could be a “perfectly reasonable and innocent explanation” for a person’s DNA being found in different places – transfer DNA.

He pointed to the fact that Mr Chi had briefly lived at Mr Wong and Ms Chung’s house, and that Ms Chung had moved in with the victim when she found out her husband was having an affair with a woman called Cherry in September 2019.

And Mr Wong didn’t wear size 7 shoes, which were the size that made the bloody footprints, though those prints matched slip-resistant work shoes he’d bought Ms Chung months earlier.

Mr McQuillan said if the crime was a puzzle there were “too many pieces missing, there’s too many pieces that don’t fit”.

Prosecutors allege Mr Wong drove to the victim’s house at about 9pm on January 31, 2020, and laid in wait inside for 30 minutes as Mr Chi returned from work at his Northland restaurant.

When he arrived home, they claim Mr Wong bludgeoned him to death with a rubber mallet, which he could have had easy access to as a plasterer, but which Mr McQuillan labelled as a “common item”.

Ultimately, the defence lawyer said the real issue in the trial would be, “did he do it?”

“Was it him? Could it have been somebody else?” he asked.

The trial before Justice Michael Croucher continues.