Two Auckland lawyers are under scrutiny following allegations that they certified a $5 million mortgage and related documents in the name of a deceased man. The transaction, which occurred more than a year after the man’s death, has prompted complaints to both the Serious Fraud Office (SFO) and the New Zealand Law Society.
The deceased, who passed away in October 2020 at Auckland City Hospital at age 59, reportedly had no transfer of title completed for his property after his death, leaving the ownership and an existing ANZ mortgage of approximately $800,000 in his name. The property, estimated to be worth around $1.43 million, was subsequently listed for sale via a mortgagee auction, with property records still under the deceased’s name as of publication.
According to documents reviewed, a second mortgage for $5 million plus interest was registered in May 2022, naming the deceased as the mortgagor despite his passing 18 months earlier. The lender involved was Everlast International Investments Group. The mortgage instrument was certified by solicitor Hui Hui (Aimee) Yang of Bird & Yang Law, who signed off as the mortgagor’s representative. Yang provided statutory declarations affirming she had a signed Authority and Instruction form from the deceased and had verified his identity—statements that the complaint alleges were false due to the deceased’s inability to provide instructions or legal capacity at that time.
Further controversy arose in March 2026, when a First Deed of Variation of Term Loan Agreement related to the mortgage was executed. Henry Feng, a solicitor from Henry Feng Lawyers, acted as the sole witness to all signatures on the deed, including one purporting to be from the deceased. The complaint suggests Feng either witnessed a fraudulent signature or knowingly certified a document signed by someone no longer alive.
The complaint lodged with the SFO and Law Society accuses both Yang and Feng of abusing their positions and misusing the conveyancing system to enable fraudulent documentation. It also raises concerns about the role of professional enablers in facilitating the false certifications.
Neither lawyer has publicly commented on the allegations; Yang’s representative declined to provide remarks, while Feng stated he would not comment. A spokesperson for the SFO confirmed that the agency does not typically disclose information about ongoing investigations or complaints. The Law Society has also refrained from commenting due to legal restrictions under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act.
The accused man, whose name has not been published due to separate ongoing fraud proceedings, reportedly used his deceased father’s identity twice to secure the financial instruments in question. The case remains under investigation, with authorities examining the implications of the legal certifications made posthumously.