Former Birmingham City FC owner would have had the same defence regardless of charges, prosecutors argue
Prosecutors say Carson Yeung defence would stay the same with different charges
Jailed former Birmingham City Football Club owner Carson Yeung Ka-sing has claimed in his money-laundering appeal hearing that prosecutors charged him too broadly, thereby limiting his options to defend himself. But prosecutors argued on Thursday that his line of defence would have been the same, regardless of how they charged him.
Barrister Clare Montgomery QC, for Yeung, argued on Wednesday that one money-laundering charge, which involved multiple receipts of funds in one account from unconnected people over six years, could not be considered a single offence. She said the defence would have been different if her client had faced more specific charges.
But Jonathan Caplan QC, a barrister for the prosecution, said on Thursday that was not the case: "Even if the count is split into some other arrangements, the prosecution case would have been the same … and the defence would have been the same."
Yeung was sentenced in February last year to six years in prison on five charges of laundering HK$721 million using five Wing Lung and HSBC bank accounts between 2001 and 2007.
Starting off as a hairstylist, Yeung claimed he accumulated his wealth through stock trading and gambling in Macau.
He shot to fame when he purchased the British football team.
On Wednesday, Montgomery said Judge Douglas Yau Tak-hong, who presided over Yeung's trial, had failed to consider whether the businessman had grounds to suspect that the money he was convicted of laundering was illegally gotten.
She was referring to a Court of Final Appeal ruling that prosecutors must show a defendant had reasonable grounds to believe the property he dealt with represented the proceeds of crime.
Caplan, however, said on Thursday that Yau had indeed considered whether Yeung had reasonable grounds to believe the money came from indictable offences. The judge also found that Yeung had lied when giving evidence, the barrister added.
Montgomery said that combining transactions of different natures into one charge would obfuscate some key legal issues from the court. She concluded that the trial was unfair because the charges were too broad.
Three Court of Appeal judges reserved their judgment for a date to be fixed.
