According to a recent report by the NY Post, Hunter Biden faces demands from his former business associate, Chi Ping “Patrick” Ho, to repay $1 million by the end of this week. Ho, who previously worked for the China firm CEFC, alleges that despite being hired as an attorney in 2017, President Bien’s son Hunter failed to provide any legal services.
Ho claims that he paid Hunter Biden for legal services that were never rendered. A source disclosed to journalist Miranda Devine that Hunter Biden did not fulfill his obligations according to their contract. Ho’s attorneys sent a message to Hunter Biden’s legal team, threatening legal action if the funds are not reimbursed within seven days.
The letter, drafted by the Hong Kong law firm Huen & Partners, also requested the immediate termination of their attorney-client agreement. Ho insists on receiving a detailed account of the work done by Hunter Biden and reimbursement for his unused funds. Hunter Biden’s lawyer Abbe Lowell received the correspondence.
Ho, who was a Hong Kong Home Affairs secretary, faced legal troubles himself and was found guilty in 2019 for bribery charges involving presidents of African nations such as Chad and Uganda. Despite this, he maintains that Hunter Biden’s only significant legal action on his behalf was contacting another attorney, Edward Kim, and arriving late to a meeting following Ho’s arrest.
During a court appearance in Delaware last July, Hunter Biden testified under oath that he had received the $1 million payment through his own law firm for legal fees related to Ho. However, IRS whistleblower Joe Ziegler disputed this claim, testifying before the House Ways and Means Committee that the payment was misrepresented in the plea agreement and was not intended for legal services.
This case highlights the complexities and potential legal entanglements that can arise in business relationships, particularly when substantial sums of money are involved. Hunter Biden’s legal obligations and the nature of his involvement with Ho will likely be scrutinized further as the dispute unfolds.