42 On my analysis of this material, it is consistent only with Wu lending S.C.A. the sum of $500,000 on 31 July 1991 as a consequence of the agreement reached between Hui and Wu during Hui's visit to Hong Kong in that month, that Wu would provide $500,000 by way of loan to achieve the development of the Beenleigh property in a way proposed by Hui. At the time of that discussion, Hui and Wu were both directors of S.C.A. which was then apparently in the process of settling a contract whereunder S.C.A. purchased that Beenleigh land. Obviously, Hui was still in straightened financial circumstances and it seems clear that it was thought necessary for Wu to contribute $500,000 to permit S.C.A. to settle that contract. It is interesting to note that Hui's contribution was simply an undertaking or promise that he would provide a prefabricated industrial building of approximately the same value. It emerges that in fact the money lent by Wu on 31 July 1991 to assist funding the Beenleigh land investment was not used for that purpose but was diverted - presumably at the instance of Hui for other purposes. However, it seems to me unarguable on the material to which I have referred that the $500,000 was not lent to Hui but was indeed lent to S.C.A. It is clear that that money has never been repaid to Wu or to whichever of her companies at her request provided the funds for the telegraphic transfer of 31 July 1991.