Mystery ‘uncle’, ‘fraudulent’ bank documents and ‘fabricated’ evidence raised in Sally Zou case

Prominent Chinese Liberal Party donor Sally Zou called the man suing her for $10m a liar in Federal Court, and said a document setting out their arrangement was a ‘fabrication’.

Sally Zou arriving at the Federal Court in Sydney this week. Picture: Dylan Coker

Chinese mining entrepreneur Sally Zou on Wednesday gave evidence in court directly contradicting her own affidavit, called the commodities trader who is suing her for more than $10m a “liar”, and revealed that the “uncle” linked to major Chinese companies was not her uncle at all.

She also was granted relief from Federal Court justice John Halley, allowing her to give evidence about a fraudulent bank document her affidavit evidence says she bought in Hong Kong, which was to be used to establish her bona fides with coal buyers.

Justice Halley granted Ms Zou a section 128 certificate, allowing her to give evidence which could not be later used against her in any criminal matter.

Ms Zou, who was being cross-examined by the trader, Anthony Smyth, who is self-represented, said she could not have signed a “working agreement” with him in February 2012, because she had not even met him then.

This contradicts her affidavit which has been tendered to the court, which states that she signed the agreement “on or around 7 February 2012’’.

Ms Zou told the court that there was a “typing error” in her affidavit, before later saying she did in fact meet Mr Smyth in January of that year.

“When do you say you first met Mr Smyth?’’ Justice John Halley asked Ms Zou.

“I think it’s in 2012, maybe in July or sometime, yeah, in July … middle of the year, in winter,’’ Ms Zou said.

The Judge later asked her twice again when she had first met Mr Smyth, to which she replied “I think it’s in January some time’’.

Ms Zou also told the court, this time through the translator present, that the agreement on the court record was not genuine.

“The agreement was not signed on the seventh of February 2012. This was fabricated,’’ she said.

Speaking for herself, she added, “because on seventh February, 2012 … I never seen you’’.

“She didn’t even know you,’’ the translator added.

Chinese mining entrepreneur Sally Zou, who lives in Adelaide and Sydney while in Australia. Picture: Jo-Anna Robinson

Mr Smyth is suing Ms Zou for more than $10m, claiming he was not paid commissions for commodities trades, which would have been worth hundreds of millions of dollars had they eventuated.

Ms Zou denies Mr Smyth is owed anything.

Mr Smyth has told the court previously that he believed Ms Zou had the financial wherewithal to fulfil the contracts he says he set up because he was shown a document purporting to show her company, Australia Gloria Energy, had $US18.6bn in the bank, and because her uncle was rumoured to be very influential in China.

Phillip Lonergan, acting for Ms Zou, put it to Mr Smyth on Tuesday that the document he was relying on in relation to the $US18.6bn figure was almost entirely written in Chinese, and that it was not in fact shown to him at a lunch in Sydney’s Chinatown in 2012.

Mr Smyth replied that while he was “not 100 per cent sure’’, he said he saw the $US18.6bn figure in a document and that Ms Zou told him she was a billionaire.

On Wednesday, Ms Zou was asked who her uncle was, with Mr Smyth previously telling the court he had been told the uncle was a senior figure at China’s Southern Cross Cement, Sinosteel, and another major company.

READ MORE: Who is Sally Zou? | Trader’s claim for extra $15m disallowed

Ms Zou said she “never, ever” said her uncle was a “big person” at the cement firm, and she had been using the term “uncle” as a term of respect, not in the literal sense of the word.

Mr Smyth also sought to establish that Ms Zou had paid him $2000 in cash, which she rejected saying he borrowed money from her.

“I didn’t pay you,’’ she told the court. “You borrowed money. You said you need to buy some food or something.

“You always apply for money from me, do you remember? You borrowed $100 from me,’’

“I don’t remember that ever,’’ Mr Smyth replied to which Ms Zou replied, “liar”.

Ms Zou also gave evidence that a bank document she bought in Hong Kong in November 2010, was to be used to establish her bona fides with buyers in the coal trade.

Justice Halley asked Ms Zou why she asked for the document in November 2010.

“Because during that time I have some friends and the buyers from China and they want to buy some more coal.

Ms Zou said her associate John Li told her she needed something like a bank certificate “and he can help me to look at it or talk to the seller or miner’’.

Ms Zou’s affidavit says she bought the bank document, however that document dates the purchase in 2012.

“I paid HK$100,000 in Hong Kong and bought a bank statement,’’ the affidavit reads. “It was sent to John by email. But it was in March 2012.’’

Ms Zou and Mr Smyth also got involved in a tete a tete over whether he told her he was a lawyer – which he is not – with Ms Zou telling the court “you were my lawyer’’ saying she trusted him because she had been told he was a solicitor, and said he also told her that.

“You told me you were a lawyer, that’s why I trusted you,’’ Ms Zou said.

She also denied that Mr Smyth helped her establish relationships with mining giant BHP.

The case resumes on Thursday.