Commercial Litigation — Defendant Satisfies the High Bar for Asserting Forgery as Court Dismisses Plaintiff’s Claim for Over USD 4 Million

In Dmitry Yanishevskiy v Maxim Moskalev [2026] HKCFI 4953, the central dispute turned on a promissory note allegedly delivered by the Defendant to the Plaintiff for a sum of over USD 4 million. The Defendant said the note was not genuine, and his signature on it had been forged. Forgery is notoriously difficult to prove. The trial lasted 18 hearing days, with the parties recalled for two further hearings on submissions. Deputy High Court Judge Nigel Aiken SC found that the burden was met and held in favour of the Defendant. The Defendant was further awarded indemnity costs against the Plaintiff on the promissory note claim. Abigail Liu acted for the successful Defendant.  

Background 

The parties and three other associates had been friends for nearly 20 years and jointly invested in KEC, a company in the business of sourcing oil drilling equipment in China for sale in Russia. In 2017 the Plaintiff’s group agreed to exit KEC and transfer its interests to the Defendant for payment, as recorded in a Memorandum and later an Addendum. The relationship broke down over delayed payment. The Plaintiff’s claim at trial relied on a promissory note promising over USD 4 million, well above what was then owed. The Defendant denied producing or signing it. The Plaintiff also pleaded misrepresentation, alleging that the Defendant never intended to pay. 

The complexities of the trial 

Almost all the documents, including voluminous correspondence and exchanges between the parties, were in Russian, and translation disputes arose throughout. Every key witness gave evidence in Russian through an interpreter. The Plaintiff called nine witnesses, and the case saw last-minute additional witnesses introduced on the Plaintiff’s side and last-minute interlocutory applications. 

Handwriting experts and Russian law experts were also involved, although the Russian law experts were ultimately not called at trial. The handwriting experts for each side produced a Joint Report that left them an ocean apart. Due to the complexity of the case, the Court decided to reconvene the parties for two further hearings after closing submissions. 

The high bar for proving forgery 

A party alleging forgery must show more than suspicious circumstances and must adduce evidence justifying a reasonable inference that the questioned signature was forged. Handwriting expert evidence is treated as secondary to an objective look at the surrounding circumstances and the credibility of the witnesses. 

The Defendant emphasised, and the Court weighed, several factors, including the note’s terms (an unexplained overpayment and a penal interest rate) and, most tellingly, the complete absence of any mention of the note in the parties’ contemporaneous emails and messages. Credibility was crucial to the case. The Plaintiff’s witnesses were subjected to heavy cross-examination, and the Court rejected their evidence on the origin and delivery of the note. The Court held that the Plaintiff had not proven the note was genuine, preferred the Defendant’s handwriting expert, and found that the signature on the note was forged. 

Key takeaways 

This case is an example of how, where there is a stark conflict between witnesses of fact, the Court will look to objective circumstances for support. When advancing an allegation of forgery, it is therefore important to analyse the objective evidence closely, assess whether it supports your case, and build submissions that rely on such evidence accordingly. 

The Court also reiterated that the value of handwriting expert evidence is subsidiary to the real evidence surrounding the origin of the contested document, including the evidence of factual witnesses. This too is worth bearing in mind when advancing a case on forgery. 

Ms Abigail Liu and Mr Chris Fong (except on 4 and 14 August 2026), instructed by Henry Wai & Co., Solicitors LLP, appeared for the Defendant. 

 

Abigail Liu

Abigail joined Chambers in 2019 after completing her pupillage with Mr. Graham Harris SC, Mr. Tim Kwok, Ms. Catherine Wong, Mr. Simon Wong and Mr. Jeffrey Tam.​

Abigail is developing a broad civil and criminal practice.  She has experience in areas such as family and matrimonial matters, public law, land, tort, personal injuries, employee compensation, commercial litigation, trusts, probate and contract.​

Abigail has been instructed to appear in the Magistracies, the Lands Tribunal, District Court and High Court. She accepts instructions in all areas of work. She is fluent in English, Cantonese and Putonghua. She is capable of providing written submissions and conducting hearings in both English and Chinese.​

Visit Abigail’s profile for more details.

This article was first published on 25 September 2026.

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.