An agent can't look after a buyer's interests while quietly helping somebody else acquire the very property that buyer wants. In Hu (Re), 2025 BCSRE 104, British Columbia's Superintendent of Real Estate accepted findings that a licensed agent had assisted a competing buyer, taken an interest in the property himself and kept important parts of the arrangement from his original client. The regulator cancelled Alan LanFang Hu's licence and that of his personal real estate corporation. It also imposed a $120,000 discipline penalty, payable by the two respondents jointly and severally.
How the competing purchase unfolded
Hu represented a couple who planned to sell their Surrey home and use the proceeds to buy another property. Their original conditional $2.1 million purchase agreement expired in December 2017 because their home hadn't sold in time. The client wanted to try again. On January 1, 2018, he sent Hu another offer of $2.05 million.
The accepted facts show that Hu had also discussed the same property with a friend and former client. The two talked about investing in it together and sharing their profits. Hu referred the friend to another licensed agent, who submitted an unconditional offer for $2.098 million on January 2, just after Hu forwarded his original client's new offer. The seller accepted the friend's offer later that day. Hu told his own client that somebody else had succeeded, but didn't disclose his personal connection to the competing purchase.
Hu received a referral fee of $19,245.25 without disclosing it to the original buyer. The friend subsequently assigned the purchase contract to Hu, who completed the transaction with a family member in March 2018. The proposal records that money contributed towards the acquisition was paid into Hu's personal account rather than handled through his brokerage. The property later sold for $3.35 million. By then a separate civil action had also been brought. The consent materials report that a BC Supreme Court judgment required Hu to disgorge profits from this transaction, but the reasons for that separate civil judgment weren't independently reviewed for this card.
Why BCFSA made misconduct findings
The accepted proposal addressed professional duties beyond avoiding personal gain from the client's unsuccessful offer. Hu had shared confidential information about the client's bid with a competitor, failed to disclose his own financial interest and a referral fee, and did not properly inform his managing brokerage of the assignment or the transaction funds. It also described misleading statements to investigators and a failure to report the related civil judgment.
Those facts mattered because using another real estate agent to submit the friend's offer didn't separate Hu from the transaction. He was still acting for his original buyer while pursuing a financial stake in the property through somebody else. The agreed findings engaged the professional requirements of honesty, confidentiality, acting in the client's interests, managing conflicts, complying with brokerage oversight and cooperating truthfully with the regulator.
BCFSA accepted the proposal on June 11, 2025 and made findings of professional misconduct and conduct unbecoming under the Real Estate Services Act and its rules. Hu and his personal real estate corporation consented to cancellation of both licences and the $120,000 penalty, payable within 6 months. They also waived their rights of appeal under the agreement.
What the order establishes
This wasn't a contested hearing in which the Superintendent weighed witnesses and published separate reasons. The complete official record is a 9-page consent order with an attached proposal setting out the agreed facts, accepted statutory findings and final sanctions. Those documents establish the regulatory disposition. They aren't an appellate ruling on civil damages, and the separate civil court judgment recited in the proposal mustn't be mistaken for reasons independently reviewed here.
For a brokerage, the practical lesson is more immediate. A client's financing problem or a competitor's unconditional offer doesn't erase an agent's obligation to protect client information and disclose conflicts. A personal investment opportunity that overlaps with a client's instructions needs to be handled openly with the brokerage, before the client is disadvantaged. Asking a second agent to handle the competing offer is no substitute for that responsibility.
Original source: BC Financial Services Authority, complete official consent order and proposal.