Often Partisan

The Carson Trial – Day 40

Carson Yeung continued to give evidence in the District Court today as his long running trial on five counts of money laundering entered its fortieth day.

Carson, dressed in a sombre suit arrived in court alone and refused to speak to press gathered outside. He appeared in fairly bright spirits as he held a brief conference with his legal team prior to giving evidence.

The Blues president was chiefly asked about his stock dealings today; how many accounts he had opened, how he traded shares along with two specific examples where he made significant amounts on transactions – HK$22mil and HK$56mil respectively – as the defence looked to prove that Carson had legitimately made money in the period in question.

He gave his answers via an interpreter in a calm, monotone voice and sounded confident and knowledgeable about what he was talking about. Carson was able to answer every question about his dealings in the stock market and gave the impression that he was a very respectable (and lucky) trader, making profits on penny stocks from 1999 to about 2007.

Carson also confirmed details of a property project in Malaysia and Thailand along with a property development project in Fanling here in Hong Kong called “Wealthy Villa”.

It was a fairly prosaic day in court but for Carson it was an important one as it gave details about how he made money in the period in question along with confirming how and why he made payments in the way he did. Carson also flatly denied controlling his father’s accounts, confirming that whilst they did work in concert his father Chung Yeung was the one to make the call to his brokers to give authorisation.

The case has now been adjourned until Monday, 10:30am (3:30am BST) when Carson will spend an hour or two giving his last evidence in his defence before he is cross-examined by the prosecution. That will be the crux of the case as once the prosecution start asking him questions he cannot be helped by his defence team any further. The cross-examination is expected to last two to three days.

From speaking to both legal teams the feeling is that the final arguments in the case will be heard in November with a decision in December; however, this is just a ball-park guesstimate at the moment and we will not know more until the Judge gives dates for re-convening the hearings after the cross-examination ends.

Tags: ,

86 Responses to “The Carson Trial – Day 40”

  • zxcv says:

    so what evidence did he produce to show where the money came from? Stating things is not proof of anything.

    • almajir says:

      Buying and selling instructions signed by him, bank statements, margin account statements…

      There was documentary evidence on show for the deals in question…

      • zxcv says:

        Was there anything from the Inland Revenue to show what earning he declared for the years in question, as he wouldn`t have paid Tax on money he didn`t earn and if he is now saying he made more than what he declared then that is Tax Evasion isn`t it.

        • almajir says:

          No it’s not, cos you don’t pay tax on stock profits… ;)

          • zxcv says:

            So I take it from your answer, that there was nothing from the Tax office to show his earnings. If that is the case I would imagine the Prosecution might just oblige the court with what was declared by him. Will be interesting when they get to question him. But thanks for your info Dan.

          • almajir says:

            No, I’m saying you don’t pay capital gains tax on stock profits so your question is immaterial whether there is info from the tax office or not because he wouldn’t have paid tax on it – and this isn’t a tax evasion case, it’s money laundering.

          • zxcv says:

            I am talking about Income Tax not Capital gains Tax, I think you need to read my first post to you mate.

          • zxcv says:

            IE working as a haie dresser has nowt to do with Stokes has it?

          • almajir says:

            Yeah, and he filed tax returns in those years correctly – he ceased being a hairdresser in 1997 – the case is concerned with 2001-2007

            Mate, I’m sat in the court room and I’m talking to the prosecution and the defence teams before and afterwards. If they’re not concerned with tax I think that you are barking up the wrong tree.

          • zxcv says:

            where did I mention Stocks?

          • Pedant says:

            I can assure you that in most of the world including the UK, “you” do pay Capital Gains Tax on profits made on selling stocks and shares. You are correct that there is no CGT in Hong Kong, so Carson would not have to declare any such income to the HK taxman.

          • almajir says:

            That’s what I’m saying. There is no tax issues in this case.

          • zxcv says:

            Your spot on Pedant, but my question to Dan was nothing to do with Stocks anyway. lol

          • Frankie says:

            No Capital gains in HK ?

          • zxcv says:

            No there isn`t, but there is Income tax. lol

          • almajir says:

            And despite your protestation, it remains irrelevant. “lol”

          • zxcv says:

            How do you know his earnings are irrelevant ? I asked you about tax returns to show his earnings as that could and would count towards the funds he needs to prove. What is so hard for you to understand in my question? Once again you should read again my Third post to you.

          • zxcv says:

            sorry my second post.

        • Luke says:

          I think this is a case of misunderstanding.

          Dan is saying that the case for the defence is that the money that came into Carson’s bank account during the period in question was the result of stock dealing, not income from employment.

          Since there is no tax payable on profits from stock trades in HK, tax returns don’t come into play.

          If Carson was saying that some of the previously-unaccounted money came from stocks and some from employment that he hadn’t declared earlier, then there would, I imagine, be a tax issue. But he’s not saying this.

          • Pete says:

            I think it is a case of the same disagreements and being pedantic again when Dan makes a point and Dan having had enough of it after so many times – in my opinion.

  • Oldbluenose says:

    How come yet another adjournment, ?. It was thought there would not be any further breaks this session,!!!!!

    • almajir says:

      Scheduling conflicts. The judge has a sentencing to sort tomorrow and both counsels are dealing with other cases. it’s not too bad; they’re still on target to get this bit wrapped up by next week.

  • John says:

    This is looking good for carson, any news on the takeover

  • John says:

    Do you think it’s looking good for carson now

  • BigmanSteve0 says:

    Almajir me old mucka, do you reckon that if he gets a not guilty on those 5 counts do you think he’ll go mad & have a spending spree on the blues & all bets off regarding selling or is he gone no matter what ?

  • Andy says:

    Wealthy Villa? *shudders*

  • Richard Granfield says:

    You write “Carson was able to answer every question about his dealings in the stock market”.
    He obviously not only knew the questions in advance,but probably helped his barrister formulate them.
    It will be interesting to hear his answers when cross examined by the prosecution barrister. How well he copes with these questions determines whether he is found guilty or not guilty.

  • ChrisG says:

    Dan,do you know if CY is found not guilty whether he will be able to sue for compo for having his assets frozen for so long as his whole busines empire seems to have collapsed around him since his arrest

    • almajir says:

      Don’t know.

      However.. his chances of being found not guilty are exceedingly slim.

      • Frankie says:

        About as likely as the Vile making a ‘push’ for the Champions league places !

        • almajir says:

          Actually, that’s a good comparison. It’s theoretically possible but can you see it happening?

          • Lee says:

            Hey mate, fair play to you going over there pal, so reading your comments it’s sounds like the general consensus over there is he’s going down, if he’s found guilty does the club get taken from him, he’s obviously going to appeal, will this affect the club being taken from him? As I’ve read in your previous posts the appeals can go on over a couple of years, also does a guilty verdict not break any football league regulations?
            Sorry for all the questions mate but if being found guilty rids is of this regime it can’t come quick enough

          • almajir says:

            Lee – that’s down to the football league. If Carson is convicted he fails the fit and proper person test – but how the League implement their rules is down to them and I’m not sure how they will play it. Needless to say, I’ll be putting what pressure I can on them to enforce their own rules in that eventuality.

  • bully-beef-jnr says:

    Dan have the FL passed any comment on what will happen or time scale if CY is fiund guilty

  • phil says:

    I said all that time ago that Carson could be a victim in all this and he still could be.
    I can’t see him coming back to run us though even if not guilty verdict happens because of what’s gone on. But, if he is found to be innocent, what has happened since the day he had his assets frozen could not have been avoided by him could it?
    Having said that, I hope he sells us and we don’t ever have to go through all this again.
    Or…………..what if…………..he pumps millions into the club if his assets are unfrozen and builds us up again? Would we forgive him? Could we? Who would we blame for our demise then?
    Interesting thoughts.

    • StaffsBlue says:

      For me, that is an excellent point. If Carson Yeung is found not guilty of all charges, then is he totally innocent of everything that’s happened to BCFC in the last 2 years? Would the real blame for our plight be solely down to the HK authorities for bringing the case in the first place, thus leading to the starvation of funds we’ve suffered? Maked you wonder.

  • bluenose says:

    hi, all i think we should all be grateful to dan for keeping us informed about CY, and remember that its CY on trial not dan .. many thanks dan on keeping us up todate…

  • DoctorD says:

    Almajir — so this is all in English, right? What’s Carson’s English like? And were you wearing your Blues top in court?

  • Eddie says:

    “He gave his answers via an interpreter”
    Excuse my ignorance, but I assumed this was all in “foreign” and you had an interpreter.

    Is this whole case in English?

  • mark says:

    Please carson gave a good account of himself….. It appears now that if the crux of his case hinge on the questions when crossed examation by prosecution. I would think Carson legal team has prepared him very well for the questions they might ask……….then judge might have totally different handle on his case………..

  • mark says:

    Dan – like yourself I am no legal expert if he was found not guilty. Can the prosecution appeal against this decision? Or once he is found not guilty is that the final verdict.

  • bluenose08 says:

    I know it part of your book research but thanks for keeping us informed of what is going on from a 1st hand point of you. k.r.o.

  • james says:

    on a lighter note. I was in HK 3 days ago. shame we could have had a beer!

    your from Kingshurst right?

  • Quokkasskip says:

    Good update Dan.

    Are you staying for the cross exam next week. Hope so

  • Gianni says:


    you mention about Carson failing the fit and proper persons test, which obviously is performed when someone is looking to become a director or owner of a club, but if they pass the test initially will the Football League re-visit the test in certain cases? or is it that they perform the re-test every season?

    I’m just worried that the fit and proper person test won’t be applicable as he already is involved with the club?

    cheers, keep up the good work.

  • sw16girl says:

    Dan – do you get any feeling over there about whether the authorities would try and confiscate the club as an asset arising from criminal activity if CY is found guilty?

    • almajir says:

      I don’t believe that they would. However, I do not know what their plans are with regards to the club should they secure a conviction as the authorities will not discuss it.

      • SW16girl says:

        Ta – I think it is not that likely but would be possible – of course it may well be that once the parachute payments have gone that they might consider it a liability rather than an asset.

  • John says:

    Can you tell carson young to phone palandi and say if he’s selling the club, yeungs lawyers and palandi have spoke and paladini has signed the paper work 15 days ago but has not heard anythink back from pannu or yeung

  • StaffsBlue says:

    Will OP being doing a blog on youre thoughts following Tom Ross’ show last night…. or will you be keeping your distance?

Leave a Reply

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