Often Partisan

The Carson Trial – Day 11

Carson’s trial into five counts of money laundering continued today in the District Court with the main prosecution witness Roderick Sutton on the witness stand.

South China Morning Post reports that Sutton gave further comments on the hallmarks of money laundering, stating that cash transactions related to casinos, security brokerage firms and jewellery shops.

On Thursday the court heard SJM Holdings, a company which holds a casino licence in Macau,  had issued cash cheques to Carson Yeung totalling HK$72.5mil. Sutton commented that these funds might be connected to gambling-related activities but that there had been no supporting documents so far.

The court case resumes Tuesday, May 28 at 10am HK time (3am BST).

Edit – 22:30 BST May 27

Oriental Daily reports that Roderick Sutton talked about the large number of cash payments made into the accounts, with funding sources obfuscated by complex paying in procedures and the temporary nature of funding in the account.

Tags: , , ,

22 Responses to “The Carson Trial – Day 11”

  • Bluenosesol says:

    The observations from the prosecution thus far tend to be of the flavour – If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck, but probably isnt good enough. I cant help feeling that unless the prosecution have reserved the best to last, then the defence are preparing to dance all over the evidence once they get their day in court.

    • almajir says:

      I will keep stressing this – the Defence SC Graham Harris said in open court on the first day that the tactical onus was on Carson to prove his innocence, not for the prosecution to prove his guilt.

      • Carlos says:

        He could always adopt the father Ted stance as his defence ” the money was just resting in my account”

  • Just to be clear here Dan; are you saying that Carson Yeung is guilty until proven innocent? If this is so then by my reading of this situation just discrediting the prosecution case as nothing more than circumstantial as I think Bluenosesol is implying won’t be enough then? If you are going to deprive a man of his liberty it seems only right that the evidence against the man has to be clear, unequivocal and compelling. If I’m misreading this I stand to be corrected but surely Carson’s defence has to cast enough doubt on the prosecution’s position for him to walk free, no?

    • almajir says:

      Yes, it was said in open court on the first day that effectively Carson was guilty until proven innocent because of the way money laundering charges work.

  • Steve-0 says:

    I think to a certain extent there is some fairness to this, but I have to ask myself, if Carson is innocent and can explain away the movement of such funds surely he’d have done this to prevent this ever getting to court.

    I understand the difference in proving a charge like murder over money laundering after all it would be virtually impossible for persecutor to prove money originated from an illegal source and in fact hallmarks of money laundering should be enough to arrest and question somebody on their activities. I mean criminals don’t invoice each other do they! Or submit tax returns.

    Whatever reason Carson gave when arrested and questioned could not have benn strong enough to prevent the case going to court.

    Over the last 6 months I’ve personally had £125k go into my bank account and I have paid out £140k. I can explain simply to any questioning authority- I’ve just sold a house and am buying a new one. I can even prove that. I don’t imagine that would go anywhere near court, unless my response was, “Erm yes officer, I won it betting some rich people on the horses”.

    I suspect his defence is already weak, but will reserve judgement until I read it.

    • KeepRightcroydOn says:

      Precisely my thoughts Steve-0. Though you put it more eloquently that I could have.

  • sappy sad says:

    …..seems no different to Karen brady and david sullivans case then,….it cost them over £200,000 to prove themselves innocent ………the courts detterent is keep out of court

  • Letsby Avenue says:

    :-(

    ‘-sigh-‘

    “Yes, it was said in open court on the first day that effectively Carson was guilty until proven innocent because of the way money laundering charges work.”

    Once again AJ.

    Can you please try to separate “courtroom-rhetoric” from blooming guilt-edged science?
    You are confusing both yourself and your readers.

    All the evidence still points to a failure to pay taxes. As the earlier Judge mentioned.

    The onus for “proving innocence” because of ‘money laundering’ charges is Barrister Hyperbole —NOT HK Law— please try and adjust that in your reporting.
    Because the Prosecution says it’s snowing, doesn’t mean it is snowing in May, in Hong Kong.

    And, before you say it again— NO, I am not a lawyer nor an accountant, but I am objective.

    There is going to be a fairly large adjournment when the Prosecution rests, when the Court (Judge) will assess the Carson Yeung submissions – that were put in very late.

    Of which we haven’t heard a butterfly’s sneeze about.

    THAT, should give you reason to be cautious in your tendency to subjective comment.

    90% supportive of you—10% starting to think you are mortal….

    :-)

    • Blue Steve says:

      I’m sorry but for me this was this not fairly eloquently and clearly explained by almajir to you when it was last discussed??

    • ChrisG says:

      LetsbeAvenue, I’m no expert on this subject, but hasn’t CY been charged with 5 counts of money laundering NOT tax evasion as you keep expressing?, you’ve just said yourself “the earlier judge MENTIONED tax evasion”, but mentioning tax evasion & being charged with it are 2 completely different things aren’t they?.

    • Kaje says:

      Actually, Letsby, you’ve just shown yourself to have very little grasp – if a grasp at all – of the legal system.

      The burden of proof in money laundering cases is on the accused, i.e. they must prove they are innocent.

      So yes, in this case, it IS law that Yeung is considered guilty until proven innocent.

      China, in particular, follow this approach. Hong Kong also follows.

    • LatchfordHattonFrancis says:

      “Guilt edged science” – I understand your neat play on words but it’s pretentious clap-trap.

      Where did you get you’re figures from? 90% supportive and 10% against? Is that scientific or just a guess? You’re quick to accuse Dan of inaccuracies and then you throw in a ridiculous unsubstantiated stat like that. Perhaps your vote counts for 10%.

  • RibeyeBlue says:

    What, in essence, CY will have to prove is that the money which moved into and through his bank accounts came from a legitimate source. The prosecution has based its case on two key components; i) shown that the money did pass through those accounts and ii) that this would seem to fit with a ‘patern’ consistent with Money Laundering absent of any satisfactory explantion from CY as to what he was doing with it and where he got it, including the fact that his ‘declared’ earnings for tax purposes were ‘0’ over the period in question.

    From a defence point of view they just need to prove ‘legitimate source’. Now, this is where things could be easy or difficult. If just one witness is prepared to appear and say, ‘yes, the money was mine and CY kindly agreed to invest it for me’, then all will be fine and dandy. The same ‘legitimate source’ question could also be asked of such a witness however who could then be at risk of self-incrimination of himself or others.

    Id be surprised of the the CY defence team did not produce some kind of compelling rebuttal. If they dont, why bother taking this to trial when it would have been easier to cut a deal and potentially reduce the pain as well as the legal fees.

    • Kaje says:

      I would say they have SOMETHING in mind, but as to what is anybody’s guess. You would have thought that any innocence proving evidence would already have been submitted in any of the pre-trial meetings, as such I can’t see what they may have at this point.

  • OzzyBlue says:

    LetsbyAvenue – ease up old son. Don’t forget Al Capone was gaoled on tax evasion charges and not the numerous felonies of which he was suspected. Gains- ill gotten or not – need to be taxed.
    Of course Al is mortal – and so are you. And I.

  • Oldbluenose says:

    As another mere mortal,? My conclusions are that the day’s proccedings tend not to say much, in the time allowe in a working day,?.

    One presumes that the reported facts are are just bare bones reporting by the South China Post, !!.

  • zxcv says:

    I think the prosecution will come more into there own (so to speak) when they get there chance to Cross examin the defence witness`s. It will be then when they expose or fail to expose any deceit that would accopany guilt or inocense. The Defence will look quite strong imo if all the witness`s turn up to back there man as it would be very dangerous for them to lie in court would it not, so i say lets just see who is prepared to turn up. Like someone already said if they are prepaired to speak up in his favour or even if just one or two speak up for him, then Carson will be walking out. I think the defence will only need to prove the prosecution wrong on one count for there to be grounds Reasonable Doubt on the others, dont forget there is no jury on this case and the judge will not want to be proved wrong if the case gose to appeal which it will.

    • Kaje says:

      It’s going to take more than one or two character witnesses to prove his innocence, it’s highly unlikely he’ll walk at the current state of play.

  • gloria says:

    ive read all you have reported and may i say exerlent job but to be honest i dont care if he is inocent or guilty i dont want him or his side show at bcfc for the shame a humiliation our clubs going through .carson and co need a new hobby and football is not included

  • Partin says:

    ‘IF’, Carson Yeung has been invloved in huge financial transactions, which had been proven that he was party too; then if he can not, or will not, disclose the source of the funds he used , he is open to question as to the legitimate use of such assets. Accordingly it is for Carson Yeung to prove his innocence, ‘IF’ his involment in the transactions is not denied.
    this would explain Roderick Suttons remark


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

Archives