- 67 -
On the instant record, we find that Mme. Koo's business and
family relationships with petitioner are such that she would
likely favor petitioner, and therefore she was not equally
available to respondent for purposes of the adverse inference
rule. We further find that Mme. Koo was peculiarly within
petitioner's power to produce for purposes of that rule.
Before applying the adverse inference rule, another require-
ment must be satisfied, that is to say, the testimony of the
missing witness must elucidate the matters at issue, and not be
merely cumulative. See United States v. Rollins, supra; 2
McCormick on Evidence, sec. 264, at 185. On the instant record,
we find that Mme. Koo's testimony would have elucidated the
transactions at issue and would not have been merely cumulative.
During the years at issue, petitioner was managing director and
chairman of Pioneer and a director of Forward. During 1985, he
was a director of Traveluck and a director and officer of Double
Wealth. While petitioner might arguably have been in as good a
position as Mme. Koo to know of certain circumstances relevant to
these cases, there are disputed matters, such as the ownership of
Pioneer and the other foreign corporations petitioner claims Mme.
Koo owned, which her testimony would have elucidated. Mme. Koo
also would have been in a better position than petitioner to
testify concerning the intentions and actions of the corporations
that petitioner claims she owned with respect to the loan trans-
Page: Previous 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011