B.C. Realtor Ordered To Surrender Profits After Buying Client’s Dream Home For Himself
A British Columbia realtor who secretly bought a Surrey property that his client was trying to purchase has been ordered by the Supreme Court of B.C. to hand over the profits he made from reselling the house.
Judge calls agent’s actions ‘deceptive’
In a judgment released Friday, Justice Amy Francis found that realtor Alan Hu orchestrated a scheme to acquire the very home his client, a man named Pei Hua Zhong, had hoped to own. Shortly after Hu took possession of the property, he sold it for a profit of more than $1.2 million. The court described Hu’s actions as “deceptive and underhanded,” and said his conduct “represents a marked departure from ordinary standards of behaviour and is deserving of denunciation.”
“We are reviewing the Court’s decision and considering our options,” Hu’s lawyer, Robert Lo, told CBC News by email.
Meanwhile, Zhong’s lawyer, Eoin Logan, said he’ll be watching to see “what action, if any, the realtor’s regulator will take in relation to Mr. Hu’s conduct.”
A spokesperson for the B.C. Financial Services Authority, which oversees realtors in the province, confirmed they’re examining the decision and are “determining appropriate regulatory action.”
Client’s offers overshadowed by realtor’s friend
According to court documents, Zhong first approached Hu back in 2017 to help sell his existing South Surrey home and purchase another property in the same area. When Zhong found a suitable house—listed for $2.1 million—he worked with his bank on mortgage approval. That financing hinged on him having a sufficient down payment, which in turn relied on selling his original home.
As deadlines loomed and the sale of Zhong’s old place stalled, Hu informed him he could try bridging the gap by using the equity in his current house. Zhong proceeded with a second offer, this time for $2.05 million.
What Zhong didn’t realize was that Hu was vacationing in Las Vegas with a close friend at the same time. Court records show Hu quietly referred that friend to another realtor, positioning her to outbid Zhong with an offer close to $2.1 million. That offer included a clause allowing its buyer to “assign” the purchase later on.
Realtor ends up the owner
Once the seller accepted the friend’s proposal, the property was effectively spoken for—at least in Zhong’s mind. However, less than two weeks later, Hu’s friend transferred her rights under the agreement to Hu. Zhong remained unaware of that assignment.
Hu then sold the property in 2021 for a considerable markup, netting upward of $1.2 million in profit. Court documents further reveal Hu received a $19,000 referral fee for linking his friend to the other realtor who penned the competing bid.
During trial, Hu tried arguing that Zhong faced no real financial harm because, in his view, Zhong could not afford the home anyway. The judge disagreed, noting Zhong had been prepared to take on a bridge loan to make the deal happen.
Justice Francis also rejected Hu’s explanation that he only decided to buy the property weeks after his friend had secured it. Instead, the judge found Hu devised a “thought-out plan” to ensure the house would ultimately become his.
Profit handover still being calculated
The court has directed Hu to give up the gains he made on the resale, but the exact figure remains unresolved. Part of that uncertainty stems from ongoing litigation between Hu and his friend over how the profits might be split. Regardless, Hu must repay the $19,000 referral fee for the scheme.
The judge cleared Hu’s friend of any liability toward Zhong, ruling that she neither initiated nor substantially contributed to Hu’s breach of loyalty.
What it means for buyers and realtors
This case spotlights the ethical and legal obligations that realtors owe to their clients. In British Columbia, agents are obliged to act with undivided loyalty, avoid hidden conflicts, and fully disclose any personal interests that could undermine a client’s bid.
Industry insiders say it underscores the importance of transparency: buyers should pay close attention to their realtor’s actions—particularly if unexpected snags or competing bids arise. For agents, the ruling signals how the courts, and possibly regulators like the B.C. Financial Services Authority, will respond sternly to any covert behavior that puts personal gain over a client’s best interests.
While Hu has yet to comment on whether he will appeal, real estate observers will be watching the BCFSA’s next steps for any disciplinary measures. Meanwhile, Zhong hopes the judgment stands as a warning for others entrusting realtors with life-changing transactions.