Over 1 Million Visit Siem Reap During Four-Day Khmer New Year Festivities | Cambodian Prime Minister to Open UN-ESCAP’s 80th Session in Bangkok | A Picture Tells a Thousand Words: Happy Chaul Chnam Thmey | Cambodian Artists Shine at China-ASEAN Intangible Cultural Heritage Week |


Radio Free Asia has released Part Three of a self-proclaimed “expose” against Prince Holding Group by freelance “journalist” Mr. Jack Adamović Davies, who resides and works in Serbia. Similar to Mr. Davies’ previous articles, the latest article contains serious, and unsubstantiated, allegations about Prince Holding Group.

Prince Holding Group’s response is set out below.

1. Like his previous attempts at “journalism”, Mr. Davies’ latest article consists of a single sensational allegation, supported by logical leaps, half-truths and/or misleading statements, and outright fabrications.

2. The central allegation in the article is that Prince Holding Group conducted, or was involved in, human trafficking, torture, and cyberscam operations at the “Golden Fortune Science and Technology Park”. This allegation, like many of Mr. Davies’ other statements, is false.

3. Prince Holding Group does not own or manage the compound known as “Golden Fortune Science and Technology Park”, and is not involved in any of the alleged activities conducted therein. It has no knowledge or control over the alleged activities in the alleged compound.

4. Mr. Davies’ attempt to link the compound to Prince Holding Group is based on a number of false or misleading statements, which are addressed below:

a) Mr. Davies alleges that the compound is run by a company “headed by Prince executives”. This is false. None of Prince Holding Group’s executives work in Golden Fortune, the company that Mr. Davies alleges as the compound’s parent company, let alone head it.

b) Mr. Davies alleges that Mr. Ing Dara, has extensive ties to Prince Holding Group and holds directorships in a number of Prince companies. This is false. Mr. Ing Dara is not an employee of Prince Holding Group and does not hold directorships, or own any shares, in Prince Holding Group or any of its subsidiaries.

c) Mr Davies suggests that Heng Xin Real Estate (“HXRE”) is the source of Prince Holding Group Chairman Chen Zhi’s wealth. This is misleading. HXRE was a company founded by Mr. Chen Zhi. In 2018, Mr. Chen Zhi sold all his shares in HXRE. Following the foregoing disposal in 2018, Mr. Chen Zhi ceased being a director or shareholder of HXRE and no longer had any involvement in HXRE. At no time were Mr. Chen Zhi and Mr. Ing Dara co-directors of Heng Xin Real Estate. Mr. Chen Zhi’s divestment clearly predates the allegations relating to HXRE, a fact that Mr. Davis had omitted, which would have been highly misleading to the public.

d) Mr. Davies suggests that the compound is a development operated by Prince Huan Yu Real Estate (“Prince Huan Yu”), a subsidiary of Prince Holding Group. This is false. In or around 2019, a client engaged Prince Huan Yu to construct a commercial property in Chrey Thom. The project requirements matched those of a standard, commercial property and there was no reason for Prince Huan Yu to suspect anything amiss. Prince Huan Yu completed construction and relinquished control and possession of the premises to the client in 2020 in accordance with the terms of the relevant contract.

e) Finally, the article alleges that a Chinese Court in Wancang County had made a finding in 2022 that Prince Holding Group had been “in collaboration” with certain individuals in establishing illegal online casinos. This is false. The Chinese Court did not make a finding that Prince Holding Group had collaborated in the establishment of illegal online casinos. In a previous statement, Prince Holding Group had pointed out that criminals had been found to have falsely used the name of “Prince Group”, in order to deceive their victims. https://www.princeholdinggroup.com/2023/12/30/joint-statement-by-prince-holding-group-and-duane-morris-selvam-llp/ This obviously does not mean that Prince Holding Group was involved in these criminal schemes and it would be naïve to think otherwise.

5. It is disheartening that an organisation that claims to be a credible news source, would lend its name to an article that cannot withstand even basic scrutiny or fact-checking.

6. It is also glaring that, although the activities in Mr. Davies’ article are widely reported to have been committed by various named individuals and entities, Mr. Davies has chosen not to write about them. Instead, Mr. Davies has obsessed himself with making tenuous and unsubstantiated links between these individuals and Prince Holding Group. Prince Holding Group categorically denies the allegations made by Mr. Davies.

7. As previously stated, Prince Holding Group has engaged law firm, Duane Morris & Selvam LLP to advise it on its rights and the appropriate next course of action.


Prince Holding Group

Duane Morris & Selvam LLP

Related News