Often Partisan

The Carson Trial – Day 22

The first defence witness continued to give evidence at the District Court in Wan Chai today as Carson’s trial on five counts of money laundering entered the twenty-second day of hearings.

Early reports from Oriental Daily say that Jackie Pan Chik testified that money that Carson made via his Lippo Securities account could well have been used for margin calls at other accounts as well as for his own personal use – an explanation Lippo accepted for the money that went through Carson’s account.

This follows on from yesterday when Mr Pan identified to the court various penny stocks that Carson had made profit on with his Lippo Securities account. Mr Pan told the court that Carson had never failed to give an explanation of where money that was coming into the account had come from and thus had never attracted the attention of compliance officers.

The case resumes tomorrow at 9:30am (2:30am BST).

Edit 23:30 BST June 18 2013

The full report from Oriental Daily is much more enlightening, with the details of the cross examination of Mr Pan – in particular his relations to Carson via Sing Pao and BIH (as noted yesterday).

Tags: ,

57 Responses to “The Carson Trial – Day 22”

  • dave mann says:

    22 days gone, cant be to far away from concluding surely.
    this is a cancer that needs removing asap.KRO.

    • chas says:

      What is a cancer that needs removing Dave ? IF he is found not guilty and comes back, invests money and gets us going again, would you welcome him, or are you so mired in dislike for him that you wont accept him.? Just wondering, like.

  • StaffsBlue says:

    From the summary, it seemed like a plus for Carson.

  • zxcv says:

    This Witness is not giving evedence at all, he is just saying they accepted CY statement of where the money came from. In other words he is not saying where Carson told him it came from, and that is the only thing the judge can and will take as evidance, he is not interested in what they think is acceptable.

    • almajir says:

      It behooves me to remind you that you’re reading a quick summation of a translation of a quick summation – far more might have come out in court without having been reported yet

      • zxcv says:

        Dan, your last paragraph says Mr Pan told the court Carson had never failed to give an explanation where the money came from. Okay, that is not evidance, the court will want to know what that explanation was, thus identifying where and how he made that money and if it was taxable.

        • almajir says:

          Zxcv, I reiterate, he might have done so but it wasn’t published in the paper due to constraints on space. They summarise a whole day into about 400 words, they’re going to miss some detail out…

          • zxcv says:

            The onus is on the defence to prove his inocent, the judge wont or cant tell the defence what questions to ask, so there may not be any more to report on. My point was i doubt imo that the judge will not take any notice of this witness as the defence has not proved via this witness where the money came from. Dose this help you Dan?

          • almajir says:

            Not really, cos you didn’t directly answer the question – however you did so indirectly.

            My point to you is that your points are based on ASSUMPTIONS – not quite facts. It behooves us all to remember that we are working on translations of summarisations … and that we might not have quite all the facts to hand.

            You might notice at the bottom of the article it says “more to follow” – I put that there because I am expecting a lengthier report with more detail, which I will edit into the post as and when it becomes available.

            Does that make my point clear?

  • StaffsBlue says:

    But was the judge satisfied with what he said? Doesn’t say either way.

    • zxcv says:

      Thats my point. I doubt he can except this guy as a witness at all.

      • Mac says:


        How can you form an opinion on how good or bad a witnes was without reading a detailed report of what was said? The article in the paper could be rad in 60 seconds. This guy was the only winess called all day – so unless the entire court proceedings for the day lasted a few mins its obvious that there were a lot of details not covered in the article.

        • zxcv says:

          What detailed report do you want me to read? and what if the judge has not commented on what questions the defence has chose to ask.as i doubt he will anyway.

    • chas says:

      And that is Dan’s point as well. Calm your britches, we have to wait..

  • Oldbluenose says:

    I always thought that a judge, passed his decision at the end of a trial, ?. — NOT at the end of a day, !!.

    • zxcv says:

      exactly, it has nowt to do with what space a report has, i was just pointing out that the judge would not take any notice of this witness as he has not given any evidence. If there were a jury he would tell them to ignor the fact that Carson`s explanation to them as nothing to do with evidance of where the money came from. So the judge dose not have to explain this to anyone but will obviously conclude this in his decition.

      • almajir says:

        One question, and one question only ZXCV.

        Do you know everything that was said in court today, word for word?

        • zxcv says:

          Just the one question DAN
          What is it you dont understand about my question whan it was in your own report (last paragraph)

          • almajir says:

            I’m sorry, but I’m tired of saying this.

            Yes, I put it in my report. I was not in the courtroom. I was working off a 400 word report from someone who was in the courtroom. I have no idea of everything that transpired in the courtroom, thus I can only make assumptions based on that. My point to you was that you were making assumptions too (which isn’t a bad thing, it’s what happens) because you weren’t in the court room either. You cannot seem to grasp that you might not have it right, and that the details you talked about being missing might have been stated in the court room – unless you have a copy of what was said verbatim you cannot know for sure…

    • pete says:

      For God sale- this is getting daft!

  • SteveC says:

    Same sort of thing happened to me once ..
    I had just an ordinary job and yet one day everything I touched started turning to gold.
    Oh no, silly me, that was afilm.

    And tomorrow, how Carson split the atom, armed with just a pair of scissors !

    something for the weekend sir ?

  • mark says:

    got to put some money on euro millions this Friday like Carson it worth a punt……..that ever they say Carson bcfc is the best investment you will ever make……………

  • Marky mark says:

    The prosecution haven’t proved anything yet other than a number of transactions went into accounts and a number of transactions came out. Yes it may have the hallmarks of money laundering, but if Carson can prove a significant amount of this money is from legit sources he will walk free.

    I’m not buying this b-ll-x that his guilty until proved innocent bullsh-t
    The man has civil rights no matter what court he may be sat in.

    • StaffsBlue says:

      That’s how I feel. I’m not really ar$ed about how their laws work. Over here, you’re innocent until proven guilty and that’s how I’ll view this case too. If he’s proven guilty, and goes down for it, then I’ll accept it, until then, I’ll keep an open mind.

    • mark says:

      I am definitely with you Marky until otherwise I reserve my judgement until then……..

    • zxcv says:

      If the judge thinks that no one has show him where Carson got all this money from and that no Tax was paid on it, then it makes no differance what you or i think about how the law works, he may well decide that the case has againsr him has not been answered. The judge dose not have to say at the end of each day if the defence witness has proved to him where the money came from, that is what Dan is not understanding about my points so it dont matter about all the facts being reported in todays hearing, the onus is on the defence to ask there own witnesses a point blank question “Where did he get all the money concerned from”

      • StaffsBlue says:

        That was more or less my point. The only Court day I’m interested in, is the last one, where a verdict is decided on. That basically the only time we’ll get the full picture.

  • mark says:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2343999/Swansea-City-Norwich-Fulham-bid-Birminghams-Nathan-Redmond.html bcfc are holding out towards the 3mil mark for Nathan, in my imo bcfc unless it ridiculous figure come back with real money………….

    • StaffsBlue says:

      Pretty much a non-story mark. There’s nothing in there we didn’t already know. But, we have to hold out for at least £4-5m. If it’s a team in the Prem, they can more than afford it.

  • Marky mark says:

    Agreed ZXCV

    Today’s witness was completely pointless, he can call up all his staff his mates his family and hear what a great honest bloke he is, but at some point somebody needs to show evidence of where the money cane from.

    The point I was making is HK law is fundamentally exactly the same as UK law, the HK bill if rights 1990 clearly sets out anyone accused of a criminal act shall be presumed innocent until proved beyond any reasonable doubt guilty.

    It’s a grey area beyond reasonable doubt.

    • Dan H says:

      Sounds like today’s witness was pretty much a character witness.

      But for zxcv to assume a judge would not consider the testimony of a witness is laughable. They’ll consider all evidence presented unless it is not relevant and should be dismissed.

      That’s how the Law works, relevance, reasonableness, fact.

      How much weight the evidence carries is up to the Judge.

      Carson needs his own expert witness to shoot holes in Roderick Sutton’s testimony as the prosecution case appears to be based 90% on his analysis of the transactions.

      It will be interesting to see if Carson can get an impartial third party as an expert witness

      • zxcv says:

        good god Dan you`ve almost got it at last, ” UNLESS ITS NOT RELEVANT” Thats what i said in the FIRST place. Its not evidance is it, its this guys opinion, THATS why the judge will dismiss it as irelevant. It not that hard is it Dan.

        • Dan H says:

          Opinion of anyone is still evidence, of an expert even better but it;s still Opinion.

          On what basis do you think it should be dismissed?

          The prosecution’s case is based on Roderick Sutton’s Opinion of several Transactions and Accounting Trends, I suppose using your logic this ‘Opinion’ will also be dismissed and Carson will be cleared !

  • Tony says:

    Maybe this guy is covering his tracks, saying nothing in Carsons answers gave him cause for concern.
    Well maybe it should have, maybe he should have refered the matter to the regulatory bodies he did not do so why not?.

  • Marky mark says:

    I think its impossible for anybody to get a grip on this case as we are only privy to what some journalist feels worth printing in his allocated space, there could have been numerous questions from all quarters that would be relevant and of interest.

    I do feel if Carson hasn’t got a strong witness to clearly show evidence of where the money came from, the judge will indeed have a case for guilty beyond any reasonable doubt.

  • Tony says:

    Agree Marky, all this witnes said basically was it was feasible the money came from legit sources or more to the point he accepted it did, bit of a difference.

  • AR says:

    If I were you I would give up with people like zxcv. What is he trying to do? Is he trying to prove that he’s cleverer than you (if one was judging him by his spelling this can’t be the case). Keep on informing us almajir, and I’m sure the majority of us rely on you heavily to find out what is going on in Fragrant Harbour. Please ignore the irrelevance of zxcv and don’t give up on us.

    • Marky mark says:

      AR, with respect I don’t think its about who’s cleverer than who, if you want to agree with every word and opinion Almajir posts then that’s upto you, but other people have an opinion and a point of view.

      Dan is not a lawyer and refuses to be drawn on the subject, he just happens to have the best BCFC blog gping and fans want somwhere to discuss it.

      • Mac says:

        The point a lot of people are trying to make is this
        ZXCV is saying the witness has not given evidence, just opinions. What I and others have tried to say is that there MAY have been concrete evidence of where the funds came from, but its not been reported. ZXCV MAY be right in what he says – but he is saying it is FACT, when its actually just his opinion.

        • almajir says:

          Thank you Mac, very succinctly put.

        • Marky mark says:

          Mac, if there was some concrete evidence provided you would hope the journalist would have the sense to include it in his brief account of the day ?

          But your right, we don’t know what the extent of all the evidence given today or any other day.

  • Tony says:

    Yes Mac but surely the judge would delve further into exactly where the funds came from,I know Dan is working from a 400 word report and is only as wise as what he is told after all he was not in court.
    However this seems to be so important to Carsons defence it seems inconceivable it would be allowed to pass with out further scrutinyThis is in no way critical of Dan

  • George says:

    The HK law system was set up with Bristish guidelines. So CY is innocent until proven guilty. No criminal source of funds proven and he appears to be showing now he did a lot of trading in shares and securities and not camouflaging transactions. So no money laundering. He’s borrowed a lot of money and paid it back via share floatations and appears to not have much left apart from money in BIH/BCFC and his home. If that’s not taxable, for whatever reason, he walks free. Also the HK Tax Authorities provided no documents for the prosecution case I believe.

    The big questions not asked was why he paid so much for BCFC and why he pays top dollar for Pannu’s wages and expenses. The prosecution did not call expert witnesses to comment on the BCFC purchases or late account filing and amazingly did not question the auditors who resigned. Missed a trick or three there, or maybe not trying hard enough.

    • almajir says:

      Correct, bar one teensy little point.

      As I’ve continually stated… money laundering cases are different. The defence counsel (who should know what he’s talking about) made the point right at the start of the trial that in these kinds of cases there is a “tactical onus on the defence to prove innocence”…

  • George says:

    Maybe a tactical onus but that does not make him guilty to start with. If he does not provide chapter and verse the judge may find him innocent but secretive and withholding and be tempted to nail him on a minor charge at least.

  • JohnBond says:

    That’s silly 2-3 million for Redmond even if his only got a year left. Wonder what clubs would have been bidding if he had scored a few goals for England U21s

  • Letsby Avenue says:

    Gobble this translation and see what AJ has to devolve and decipher:

    “WASHINGTON Championship club Birmingham troupe Yeung case involving money laundering, seven hundred and twenty million yuan, Lippo Securities former deputy director of investment services to Pan Chik testifying as defense witnesses, the prosecution blew the whistle he closely with Yeung Yang as “Sing Pao” majority shareholder, Pan served as a non-executive director of the newspaper; Pan left Lippo later, Yang Yicheng as Pan’s securities corporate clients, the company also has held the chairmanship Young Birmingham International listed companies over three hundred million shares. However, Pan Yang stressed its regular customers rather than just a friend.”

    I think that this is basically what AJ refered to in a previous blog, about the friendly “connections” between the witness and Carson.

    More gobble Translation:

    “Company holds more than three hundred million shares Birmingham International

    Pan Chik yesterday to accept the prosecution to cross-examine defense witnesses identity, Pan admitted his wife had Lippo work, but later transferred to Kingston Securities office, Pan also ○ 七年 leave Lippo, and the creation of securities company A Shite Lang Capital Management Limited, and Yang is also his company’s customers. Pan denied Young is his friend, but to describe Young is his regular customers, and he did not know Yang Yu also known ○ 一年 has Thirty Six different securities accounts.

    Pan Chik subsequently admitted that he had come up with their own mortgage accounts 2.15 million yuan to Young, he explained, knowing Young real estate investment in the mainland have a project, he would like to participate, so as to participate in the money invested in the fund Yang was later arrested in the case therefore, Pan I do not know whether the project continues; Pan also acknowledged Young become a “Sing Pao” majority shareholder, he is also a non-executive director of the newspaper.

    The prosecution also said that Birmingham International earlier rights issue, Pan securities company had 300 million shares held in Birmingham stocks, Pan only recognize an individual with a $ 500,000 purchase of one million shares of the predecessor GRANDTOP Birmingham International, he Though there have been held by the three hundred million company shares, but its customers and has subscribed after those stocks. Pan denied Young’s close, saying only dealings with Yang Yousheng meaning.
    6.3 million cash folded 53.5 cm high

    The prosecution alleged that Pan had mentioned earlier that Young deposited six hundred thirty million in cash to the Young at Lippo account, because this method is most efficient. The prosecution alleged that even if the whole sum of cash to thousand-dollar notes, stacked up there 53.5 cm high, the staff will take a long time to count. Pan refers to, he could not remember whether in person to accompany Young to bank deposits, but refers to the bank clerk takes about half an hour to complete counting.

    Pan earlier testified that Young’s stock accounts in Lippo money by trading stocks, but also refers to yesterday alone ○ 一年 has earned nearly 80 million yuan, rather than the prosecution expert means that do not earn more than six million yuan, But Pan also acknowledged that he had not actually count the proceeds of the account Yang.

    Case Number: DCCC 860/2011 ”

    I’m really grateful to AJ, he has to go through this and precis it for us.
    His first reports are, as he says, summaries of a summary.

    For myself, I’m just paddling in the shallow bits…AJ is out there in the deep end, so give him slack.

    AND–NO—-I often disagree with Often. But I admire and Respect his diligence.


  • SteveC says:

    Yes it all sounds very plausible.
    Hairdressers (and their Fathers) often amass vast fortunes on the ‘Penny stock market’.
    Happens all the time …

  • chudlt says:

    Some of these comments are beginning to sound like comments left on the official BCFC forum. I stopped using that forum because of inane and inaccurate assumptions and pointless point scoring. God forbid Often Partisan goes the same way.

  • Blue blood says:

    I just hope we can move forward soon, with or without CY & PP, would love to see us do really well on a shoestring budget then have a massive injection of cash to purchase some glory KRO

  • SteveC says:

    There is NO future with Pannu as our Chairman !
    He is Yeung’s ‘Johnny on the spot’ doing his master’s bidding and ‘transferring’ in every respect.
    Until we get the pernicious Pannu and the Chinese ‘No Yens’ out of the club, the only way is DOWN !

Leave a Reply

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