In the case of Pan v. Liu dated February 2, 2023, plaintiff, An Dong Pan, a realtor residing in Richmond, filed a claim alleging that the defendants Xu Dong Liu, Jie Liu, and Hui Lan Shan ran a currency exchange consulting business and failed to deliver promised payments. The plaintiff refunded the client's loss and sought repayment from the defendants. The claim involved a residential property owned by the defendants, which had been subject to a CPL. The CPL was discharged to complete the sale, with $431,000 held in trust pending further court orders. The defendants denied involvement, with the daughter claiming a minor role, and the son-in-law denied receiving any funds. The son-in-law had paid $24,000 towards the debt. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to establish a strong case against the defendants. There was no evidence linking them to the transaction in question, and the plaintiff's own evidence contradicted his claims. The evidence supporting allegations of the defendants' involvement in other transactions was weak and problematic. The court found that there was no justification for a Mareva injunction based on the weak merits of the case. The defendants had been living in Canada since 2020 and had legitimate reasons for selling their property. The plaintiff's application was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the defendants. No specific information regarding a financial award was provided in the case.