Often Partisan

The Carson Trial – Day 10

The tenth day of Carson Yeung’s trial into money laundering saw the main prosecution witness Roderick Sutton go into detail about the cash going into and out of the Blues supremo’s accounts.

South China Morning Post reports that Roderick Sutton, who is widely used by the prosecution in trials like this one, comment on the patterns of money going into and out of the five accounts controlled by Carson. He said

“It is unusual to see cheques like these and this requires some explanation,”

The court had earlier heard that Sociedade de Jogos de Macau S.A. (SJM), who are one of the six companies licensed to run a casino in the former Portuguese colony of Macau issued a number of cheques amounting to HK$64mil (approx £5.4mil) into the accounts from late 2004 to early 2005.

The court also heard that a cashiers order for HK$35mil (approx £3mil) was made payable to SJM from Carson’s account in January 2005, which was redeemed 2 days later.

John Reading SC, for the prosecution said

“The pattern of deposits and withdrawals in the subject bank accounts show placement, layering and integration,”

The trial has been adjourned until Monday 27 May, 9:30am (2:30am BST)

Tags: ,

69 Responses to “The Carson Trial – Day 10”

  • Gary R says:

    Almajir – Sounds like the prosecution have a concrete against Carson, would you say so?

    Just every report that I’ve read from the trial, you can’t see how the defence will defend him…it looks indefensible. If it’s not money laundering it’s certainly alleged ‘tax evasion’ … the evidence supplied by Prosecution is there in black and white.

  • Gary R says:

    concrete case*

  • Oldbluenose says:

    Todays session looked very damming indeed, What will carson Yueng’s defence be against that, ??.

    • viperblue says:

      were they cheques as payouts for large winnings ( CY lawyers will have some line of defence)

  • zxcv says:

    They must know where the cheques came from or who paid in the cheques. if so why dont they call the payee`s into court to ask them what they were paying for? I just dont get this Dan.

    • almajir says:

      How must they know? If it’s just a name – say as an example off the top of my head “Chang Ying” – can you imagine how many people have that name in HK/Macau/China? It’s not quite that simple.

      • Chris Smith says:

        Couldn’t they just get warrants for access to the details of accounts from which the money came? Then check who opened it? It seems so obvious I’m probably wrong.

      • ChrisG says:

        Surely whatever the name is on the cheque, it would be linked to a bank account & an address thus narrowing down which “Chang Ying” paid him, just a thought but then i’m no expert.

  • Tony says:

    He could plead insanity

  • zxcv says:

    Dan, the bank HAS to know where the money into any account came from. It is NOT just a name it would have to have an Account Number on it surley

    • almajir says:

      Not at all.

      They do know where the cheque deposits have come from – for instance they name SJM.

      However, cash deposits are different. Think about putting money in a bank account here, what details do you have to give? A name at most.

      • zxcv says:

        Sorry mate forget i asked,

        • almajir says:

          Don’t be sorry to ask questions, it’s a complex thing and I only understand what I do from talking to people who know far more than me.

          The crux of it is there was loads of money in cash going into and out of his bank account rapidly – which is the hallmark of money laundering

          • bluearmyfaction says:

            Exactly. So why didn’t the bank stop it? Or at least report it?

          • Brumboi says:

            Please can someone tell me when and where this money laundering reared it’s head from.

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but earlier this year the case was for the lesser charge of tax evasion, not the money laundering that all the media seemed to latch on to.

            Alj, you even corrected me in a previous post when I spoke of money laundering.You immediately put me right to say it was tax evasion NOT money laundering. And I think your words were proven when the CY made his 1st appearance in court some months back to hear the lesser charge of tax evasion.

            Is he being charged for money laundering or tax evasion?

  • zxcv says:

    It is unusual to see cheques like these, and will need some explanation…… CHEQUES

    • almajir says:

      Yes – and they know where they came from – SJM, and SJM aren’t commenting…

      However, if it’s innnocent i’m sure Carson will call them for the defence

      • zxcv says:

        right so what i said was why dont the court just order them to attend court and allow the prosacution to ask them just what all this dosh was for.

        • zxcv says:

          This is a strange one

        • almajir says:

          Because it doesn’t work like that.

          “The Court” doesn’t call witnesses, the prosecution or defence teams do. It’s down to them to bring in who they think will help aid their case, no one else.

          The defence hasn’t started yet – it’s not their turn – they may well call them. We’ll have to wait and see

        • chas says:

          Because they might be down to for The Defence, perhaps.

  • zxcv says:

    Dan i am sorry mate but you aint got a clue what your talking about. I think we will have to leave it there. Thanks for the info though.

    • almajir says:

      Thanks for your comments

      • Paul Carter -Poster of the year 2013 he says:

        :)

        That amused me greatly

        • Brumboi says:

          Paul, why ain’t you got a season ticket for the court room? Call yourself a Bluenose. :-)))))

        • Dan says:

          It more amazed than amused. How anyone can read Dan’s reporting on this (and anything else, for that matter) and think him clueless is beyond belief.

          Dan, ignore the idiots and keep up the good work; your reporting on Blues is an invaluable link to what’s going on for the rest of us.

          I think we should allow the experts in Hong Kong to get on with it, as I’m pretty sure they know their legal and banking systems better than any of us.

          KRO
          Dan (not that one)

    • Kaje says:

      Speaking as a law student, Almajir has far more of an idea of what he’s talking about than you by the look of some of the comments! ;)

  • Dave S says:

    Guys, the word supposition springs to mind.
    You’re putting two and two together and getting ten!!
    Wait until the defence get started, I have a feeling there will be a lot of egg on face moments.
    CY must know where the money came from and indeed whose money it was.
    This was not classed as income, sit back and enjoy what happens next, I for one can’t wait.
    KROk

    • zxcv says:

      Dave, you are 100 per cent spot on, if Carson dose not call them then the court has the power of Sapeno (spelling) and can you see any bank in the world wanting to comit contempt just for CY. So you must be right he has to have the answers himself.

      • almajir says:

        And as I believe I’ve said twice… it’s not the defence’s turn YET. Let’s see who Carson calls (if it even gets that far) before the judge grants a subpoena, eh?

        • zxcv says:

          ah….at last you are agreeing with me. thank you. Dan i doubt the judge will wait for the defence to call them infact i think the defence will have to have already told the court who they intend to call,that is how they set a time on the case in the first place. So it will be interesting to see if the judge is asked to allow the pros to call them.

          • Kaje says:

            The judge HAS to wait for the defence to call them (and they will) he’s a NEUTRAL party and cannot be seen to call any evidence forward that may influence either side. A judge GRANTS a subpoena – in other words, gives agreement when someone asks for it – he doesn’t CALL a subpoena.

          • Pete says:

            I am sorry, but you do seem to have a view that there is no formal structure that the courts will follow. I think Dan have been vry clear to not include personal opinion and state when he does give opinion and not fact. I am not sure why you are trying to rubbish everything he says- after all a judge is meant to be impartial NOT do the work of the defence!

    • Brumboi says:

      100% with you on this Dave. To many people have already decided CY’s guilt.

      My stance on this is – if he’s guilty, he deserves all he gets. But don’t pre-judge until the fat lady sings.

  • Dave S says:

    Dan, ZXCV,
    I don’t believe it will go that far, “Dope on a Rope” springs to mind, roll with punches until they’re all punched out and then, STRIKE!!!
    All over.
    KRO

    • zxcv says:

      there certainly cant be as silly as it is looking at the moment.Also dont forget CY wanted this to go to a high court where the sentance is higher, why did he want to do that if it was as clear cut as being made out.

      • RUPERT says:

        Carson is about to turn his defense on the prosecution and will have answers to all this, its just to easy to defend! He will be able to show the paper chain back to where the money originated, that’s why he pleads not guilty!
        Carson NOT GUILTY !!!! WERE SAVED!

  • Dave S says:

    ZX
    Didn’t understand the first part of you last post, can you put it another way?
    Thanks

    • zxcv says:

      sorry dave, I just think Carson is not that silly and wouldn`t anyone with half a brain cover there tracks better than this …… My last post should have read, HE certainly cant be that silly.

  • Geoff M says:

    In UK courts can claim and liquidate assets bought with criminal money. If CY goes down will HK authorities liquidate BCFC ? ? interesting…. Ziggy going east ?

  • JohnBond says:

    If the money is real money that he has every right to.. And he gets found not guilty, is there anything stopping him pumping money into the club?? Hmmm very interesting times to come KRO

    • Pete says:

      To be fair to Yeung- from a personal point of view, if he gets exhonerated why would he want to. I, included, have slated him for what has happened. He has had huge stick and he will have lost millions- but we want him to pump it back into the club? I hope it all works out that way… but I dont see it.

    • chas says:

      There are going to be some wrist slashing comments on Forums today over this..Can i remind you all that it is only 23 May, we dont actually need Players for another two months(altho it is nice to have them)

      • bluenoseneil says:

        I don’t think anyone will lose much sleep over Lovenkrands, Ambrose or Mullins being told they can leave IF an offer comes in, but who the hell will want them?!!

        King is a bit more of a disappointment but with every year that goes on he will struggle to stay fit, especially with the knee. I think losing the wage and getting in a few other bodies is a better option. To be honest there should be plenty of Championship and League 1 players who can score 15 goals a season IF supplied by a decent Midfield, and I think we nearly have one.

        Not really worried much myself….and who is to say anyone will even WANT Marlon with his recent injury and chequered past???

        KRO

        • Blueboy 88 says:

          Lovenkrands, Ambrose and Mullins were all signed by Clark last summer as Blues main, high-profile additions………be lucky to move them on..

          King on the the other hand……..15-20 goal a season championship strikers don’t fall off trees..

          • ZENZERO says:

            As much as King is a top goal getter, his injurys seem to be taking its toll. He’s 33 and id say he’s probably got about another year left in him. So maybe its time we said goodbye and look to the future. As for the rest im not really bothered.

    • Brumboi says:

      Hmmm, now you’ve got me started.

      I guess we have to find the hero worshipped prolific 9 goal per season Zigic wages for the next year.

      Did you know he loves it at Birmingham, and his kids are settled at school. Which I believe is his way of saying “if you think I’m gonna walk away from the contract I’m on, you must be fcuking stupid”.

      By the way. I made these comments on this forum long before the LC lazy training outburst.

      • Pete says:

        You mean you worked out he was in no hurry to walk away from a £60k per week deal ages ago. Very perceptive…..

        • Brumboi says:

          A perceptive reply would have picked up on the main point of my sarcasm, that being my lack of understanding why so many fans hero worship him!

          • Pete says:

            Really don’t think they do. But you are clearly perceptive if you noted he is in it for the money

  • prewarblue says:

    Not bothered over the loss of “Clark,s Chums” but would have thought there could have been a small fee for King in the offing, nothing large but enough to pay for Caddis maybe ?

    • ZENZERO says:

      100,000 for King id snap somebodys hand off! To be honest, i think there would be plenty of clubs willing to pay such a small fee for his goal scoring record, despite his age.

  • Alan Watton says:

    A friend of mine has attended the trial in the last few days. His comment to me was that Carson is a gonner. He also said that the Authorities have got it in for him and are pursuing this case with a passion.

    What would his conviction mean for Blues. Would they be seized by the authorities and sold off cheaply? If so great.
    What if they stay in Carson’s hands and he sits in Jail for 20 years. We would be out of business..

  • Steve-0 says:

    Apart from the fact none of us are qualified to pass judgement, we still have only heard one side of the story and that isn’t yet complete.

    From what ive read some money has moved to and from some bank account that look suspicious. Whoopee doo! Can we give opportunity of explanation before saying things like “concrete case” and “his conviction”?

    Good work Almajir. This is the best place to keep up-to-date apart from the court itself of course.

    • zxcv says:

      Except that he dosen`t even know that a cheque has a sort code printed on them that shows the bank and the branch from whence it came.lol, Only joking Dan you do a great job really.

      • almajir says:

        You are quite right, ZXCV, they do.

        The reason they have pulled in all these securities companies? Because they deposited CHEQUES into the accounts and they can trace them.

        However, if (as the prosecution are alleging) someone walks into a bank with a load of money in hard cash – you know, the folding stuff? – and deposits it, there is no sort code, or bank details. This is what you are consistently failing to grasp.

        • zxcv says:

          You do know we were talking about CHEQUES dont you.? and NOT the folding stuff, think you need to re-read my first post to you. Although i think you know really but now you are trying to worm your way out you little tinker you.

  • OzzyBlue says:

    Comment edited on legal advice…

  • OzzyBlue says:

    Sorry for overstepping the mark with last post Al – understand completely the editing. I did try to mask it but not well enough.


Personalised Gifts for a Bluenose
Haircuts and League Cups
Open Tax Services
Corporate Solutions UK
PJ Planning
Rodal Heating

Archives