You are here

Statements by Courts of Law

1. A November 21, 2002 judgment in the matter of Wang Din Shin v. Nina Kung, Case No. HCAP8/1999 (High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Court of First Instance)

On November 21, 2002, the Court in the Hong Kong Proceeding entered a judgment on this high profile probate dispute the trial of which has been reported worldwide. Dr. Aginsky’s evidence was fully accepted by the Judge. In particular, at paragraph 29.14, the Judgment says as follows (“VNA” stands for Dr. Valery N. Aginsky):

29.14 By contrast, VNA's experience and eminence in the field, set out in his CV,31 and as acknowledged by his peers,32 are impressive by any standards. Not only is he a true scientist but an expert who has had many articles published in peer-review journals on analytical chemistry in general, and the two major areas pertaining to this case: ink and chromatography. I accept the defence submission that VNA was an impressive, authoritative and fair witness, knowledgeable, helpful and quite prepared to concede a point.”

2. In Nicole Needham Faidi v. William Faidi, Superior Court of California, County of Marin, Case No. FL1100264, the Honorable Verna A. Adams issued her Ruling on July 20, 2012. At pages 7 and 8, Her Honor says as follows:

There was an unbridgeable conflict in the testimony of wife's expert and of husband's expert Dr. Aginsky. I found Dr. Aginsky's science to be more rigorous and his testimony more persuasive than [wife’s ink expert].”