In a compelling legal battle, an individual is accusing another of fraudulent activities related to a real estate investment project. Vineet Kumar filed a complaint on October 3, 2024, in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara, against Kuan Wei Wu, also known as William Wu or Bill Wu. The case centers around allegations of fraud, concealment, and misappropriation of funds in connection with a real estate project known as the Sunny Apple Project.
According to the complaint, Vineet Kumar was approached by Kuan Wei Wu regarding an investment opportunity in the Sunny Apple Project located at 295 Commercial Street in Sunnyvale, California. Wu allegedly represented that he and his partners had already invested $3 million into the project but required an additional $5 million to secure the property. Kumar claims that Wu assured him that his $250,000 investment would be used for the property's down payment and promised repayment within three months. Furthermore, Wu allegedly stated that Kumar's investment would be secured against the property via a trust deed and prioritized over other investors' returns if funds fell short.
However, Kumar asserts these representations were false. He alleges that neither Wu nor his partners had invested $3 million as claimed and that his funds were diverted for purposes other than securing the property. Moreover, Kumar accuses Wu of violating Corporations Code provisions during their dealings. As per Kumar's account, despite transferring $250,000 to an entity controlled by Wu called Doufish—falsely represented as a DBA of DOA—he has not received any repayment or return on his investment.
The plaintiff further contends that there exists a unity of interest between Wu and DOA such that they are indistinguishable entities with DOA acting as an alter ego for Wu’s personal interests. This lack of separation purportedly allowed Wu to perpetrate fraud without accountability. Kumar seeks compensatory damages amounting to $640,000 due to financial losses incurred under the agreement terms as of April 30, 2024.
Kumar's legal team argues for exemplary and punitive damages on grounds of intentional misrepresentation and deceit by Wu. They assert that such conduct warrants punishment to deter similar future behavior from others. Additionally, they seek prejudgment interest on the claimed amount from April 30th onwards along with attorney fees and court costs.
Representing Vineet Kumar is John Gregory Downing from Downing Law Offices P.C., while Judge M. Bui is presiding over this case identified by Case ID No.—240V448703.