Justice department sued over unpaid bill of HK$6.1m in Carson Yeung case
A consultancy that helped the Department of Justice in its prosecution of businessman Carson Yeung Ka-sing for money laundering is suing the government for service fees of HK$6.1 million, a High Court writ shows.
A consultancy that helped the Department of Justice in its prosecution of businessman Carson Yeung Ka-sing for money laundering is suing the government for service fees of HK$6.1 million, a High Court writ shows.
The bills were for forensic accounting services that the firm provided between October 2012 and November 2013, including checking legal documents, reviewing expert reports and arranging witnesses, at the time when the department was pursuing a high-profile case against Yeung.
The department said it would put forward its defence after reviewing the writ.
"As legal proceedings concerning the case are ongoing, it would not be appropriate for the department to make any further comment," it said yesterday.
Yeung's case ended in March with his conviction for laundering HK$721 million using five accounts at Wing Lung Bank and HSBC from 2001 to 2007. The owner of English soccer club Birmingham City was jailed for six years.
On July 30 last year, FTI issued three invoices to the department, the writ said.
The first bill charged the department HK$1,446,764, for checking prosecution bundles of evidence and documents and reviewing expert reports, including those put forth by defence witnesses Ian Robinson and Mark Pulvirenti.
Also included were FTI's efforts in preparing the testimony and court appearance of its senior managing director Roderick Sutton as a prosecution witness.
The second and third invoices were for further services, such as attendance at meetings, reviews of defence bundles and analysis of securities firms. Yeung was accused during his trial of using those firms to launder funds.
FTI had complied with the department's request to make adjustments to its charges and consolidate all the invoices into one, totalling HK$6,117,916, the writ said. No payment had yet been made, it said.
The firm is seeking to pursue the sum, the interest that the High Court thinks should be levied, and the cost of its legal action.
