The Soccer Boss Saga: Carson Yeung and Money-laundering
Background The Law on
Money-laundering Section 25(1) of the
OSCO Actus Reus Mens Rea Yeung’s Case The Prosecution Case According to the
Prosecution, from 2001, deposits were made by various parties to the Bank
Accounts; many for no apparent reason. About 400 deposits, totalling about
HK$98 million, were made in cash; about HK$40 million originated from 21 cash
deposits, where each exceeded HK$1 million. The deposits of HK$721 million in
the Bank Accounts were virtually identical to the total withdrawn by the end
of 2007. Multiple transactions were made on the same day in which the sums
deposited and withdrawn were identical. The expert witness found that a
series of cash cheques were issued by the Sociedade de Jogos de Macau (“SJM”),
which might be related to gambling activities but there were no documents
supporting such hypothesis; in fact Yeung was not in Macau gambling when he
asked the SJM to deposit cash cheques into his bank accounts. The Defence Case First the Defence
expert witness said Yeung was running a profitable hairdresser’s salon at The
Peninsula Hotel and earned HK$4 million to HK$10 million between 1989 and
1991. In 1999, Yeung set up a research company and began to actively trade
stocks in large amounts and with margins; Yeung said the daily average for
deals was around HK$2 million. This was especially so after he allegedly made
a HK$15 million profit in real property investments. In 2008, Yeung allegedly
acquired 29.9 per cent of Birmingham City FC’s shares by borrowing HK$140
million from Kingston Finance and raising funds from the market. As regards the
cheques from staff members of Macau casino junket operators such as Neptune
Club, Yeung said that the money came from his investment capital in those
firms. He claimed that all the depositors had Hong Kong addresses, identity
card numbers and bank records. Another 11 deposits were allegedly Yeung’s
returns on his investment in a 2005 Hong Kong film. Preliminary Views on
the Case The issue is now on
whether the mens rea could be inferred from the evidence. It
would be difficult to prove knowledge, as there was no direct evidence
pinpointing that Yeung did know that the source of the deposits was crime
proceeds. The Prosecution may want to rely on the “reasonable grounds to
believe” route to prove mens rea. Indeed the large amount of
monies as well as frequent unusual deposits and withdrawals (especially from
casinos) may cast doubts on the source of those funds transacted through the
Bank Accounts. Yeung’s credibility was undermined because of his “confusing”
testimony as found by the Court, as well. As such the Court may not believe
on the “cleanliness” of sources of deposits alleged by the Defence. Nevertheless, the
burden remains on the Prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
On one hand, Yeung subjectively knew of the frequent deposits and withdrawals
in the Bank Accounts. On the other hand, it is doubtful whether the Court
could infer from the above acts of Yeung that objectively reasonable grounds
existed for the belief that the deposits represented the proceeds of an
indictable offence. The case is still
ongoing and we would update our readers on its latest development in due
course. [1] HKSAR v Li Ching [1997]
4 HKC 108 [2] Lam Hei Kit v HKSAR (unrep.,
FAMC No. 27 of 2004) [3] HKSAR v Wong Ping Shui
Adam [2001] 1 HKLRD 346; Oei Hengky Wiryo v HKSAR
(No. 2) [2007] 1 HKLRD 568 [4] HKSAR
v Shing Siu Ming [1999] 2 HKC
818 |
|
IMPORTANT: |
|
For enquiries, please contact our Litigation & Dispute
Resolution Department: |
E: criminal@onc.hk |
T: (852) 2810 1212 |