By Admin 
When people search a name pair like Mandy Sze Wan Chan and Richard Green, they are usually looking for one thing: a clear public confirmation. That could be a wedding announcement, a public record, or a direct statement from the people involved. In this case, though, the public search trail is not especially clean. One New York Times weddings result appears to be the only clearly on-topic item from the search results you shared, while many of the other visible pages attached to this query are unrelated to the relationship question itself.
That matters because not every search result that appears beside a name is actually evidence about that person’s relationship status. In this case, the search landscape looks mixed enough that the safer question is not “Are they definitely married?” but “What can be confirmed from public information right now?” Based on the material I could verify here, that answer is limited.
The strongest non-noise public references I could verify for Mandy Sze Wan Chan place that name in a few separate contexts. Multiple real estate listing pages identify Mandy Sze Wan Chan with Premier Brokers International in BeachesMLS listings in Florida. Those pages establish that the name appears publicly in real estate listings, but they do not by themselves confirm a marriage to Richard Green.
There is also a separate public listing from the Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission that includes CHAN Sze Wan, Mandy as a licensed representative in a historical removal list. Again, this shows the name exists in another public-facing context, but it does not establish a connection to Richard Green or confirm any marital relationship.
These results are useful for one reason: they show why name-based searches can become confusing quickly. A rare or distinctive name may still appear across multiple public databases, industries, or countries, and that does not automatically mean every mention belongs to the same life story.
The biggest issue with this keyword is noise. Several pages that appeared around the query are clearly unrelated. The visible Facebook result is a “Memories of Stanley, Hong Kong” group post, not a relationship source. Other results tied to the name search include academic or professional material that does not speak to marital status at all. That means the search engine results page creates the impression of depth without actually offering much trustworthy relationship evidence.
That is important for readers because a crowded results page can feel like confirmation when it is really just coincidence. A list of unrelated pages containing part of a name is not the same as verified public information about a marriage.
From the accessible public material I could verify here, there is not a broad cluster of reliable sources that clearly confirms Mandy Sze Wan Chan is married to Richard Green. What appears to exist is one likely relevant weddings result from The New York Times, plus a larger set of unrelated or weakly related pages that do not independently verify the claim.
That distinction matters because a marriage claim should rest on something stronger than search overlap. A wedding announcement in a reputable publication, a public record that directly matches both names, or a direct public statement would all count as stronger confirmation. Without that, the most accurate wording stays cautious.
Based on the public information I could verify here, there is not enough accessible evidence to state that confidently as a settled fact. There appears to be one potentially relevant New York Times weddings result, but the broader set of accessible search results does not clearly confirm the relationship and includes a lot of unrelated material.
That makes the best answer a careful one: the query exists, one likely relevant wedding-style source appears in search, but the accessible public evidence I could confirm in this session is too limited and too noisy to support a stronger claim. In cases like this, accuracy matters more than speed. And when public information is thin, the most honest conclusion is simply that the claim remains unconfirmed from the material clearly available here.