Connect with us

Entertainment

Chinese woman targeted by CAB complains in court she is ‘more famous than Gerry Hutch’

Published

on

Chinese woman targeted by CAB complains in court she is ‘more famous than Gerry Hutch’

A Chinese woman linked to various goods and funds that have been deemed crime proceeds has complained to the High Court that she has been made “famous even more than Gerry Hutch”.

Yan Yan Fan maintained her innocence and asked the judge if he could make an order against journalists. She said she was recognised in an ice-cream shop and is concerned about her child.

She has not committed any crime, and this is not fair to her or her child, she told the court on Wednesday. Since the Criminal Assets Bureau (CAB) knew her life she cannot get a professional job, she added.

Mr Justice Alexander Owens said “journalese” is not his style but he “cannot do anything about the press”. He suggested she not read the newspaper she complains about.

Using the “balance of probabilities” level of proof, the judge earlier this month made orders under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act declaring as crime proceeds dozens of luxury items and some €146,000 linked to Ms Fan (47) and Guang Ying Wang (49).

Mr Wang, also known as “Richard”, did not contest the case. Ms Fan, who also uses the name “Ivy”, represented herself in court and denied any involvement in crime.

‘Surrogate shopping’

The judge said the bureau alleged the pair were in league with other Chinese nationals involved in operating cannabis grow houses. It pointed to large amounts of cash that passed through Irish bank accounts of Ms Fan, Mr Wang and her parents over the years and claimed the accounts were used to launder illegitimate income in the black economy, he said.

The bureau alleged Ms Fan used the “daigou” or “surrogate shopping” method of sending luxury goods to China, with these outflows matched by money transfers by her parents to Ireland.

On Wednesday, Mr Justice Owens awarded the bureau two-thirds of its legal costs. This reflected that the bureau “did not win everything” in its action, which he believed contained one improper element.

After Ms Fan submitted that she had proved certain matters, including her innocence, the judge said he has already made up his mind on the evidence. If she thinks he is wrong she can appeal.

Ms Fan said she was not happy with his judgment but she wanted to thank all of the High Court’s staff, who have been “really nice” to her.

Previous judgment

In his earlier judgment, Mr Justice Owens said Ms Fan had a “significant link” with 7A Henrietta Place in late 2012 when a grow house with 1,490 cannabis plants valued at €1.1 million was found to be operating from there.

She was a tenant of the property in 2012 and 2013 but when interviewed by gardaí in 2014 she claimed her business partner had put a sub-tenant in who was responsible for the operation, he said. He found it hard to credit her evidence that she was unaware of what was going on upstairs at 7A.

He said she has a significant link with Mr Wang who was involved in money laundering and the commercial growing and distribution of cannabis in 2020.

Her regular lodgements to bank accounts of large sums in cash over the years were consistent with laundering of cash receipts from drug dealing and cash receipts from activities which involved tax evasion, the judge said.

He found to be “wildly improbable” her claim that the “vast sums” spent in Brown Thomas between 2016 and 2020 from two of her accounts were transactions on behalf of Chinese friends and tourists. He noted there were no tourists in Ireland for most of 2020 and that China was then in lockdown. 

It was probable that the money used to service these bank accounts originated in her Irish crime proceeds, he said.

However, he found some of the information the CAB relied on to link Ms Fan with criminality was “unconvincing”. This included its unsatisfactory proofs regarding the valuation of the 96 items of designer-label goods seized by gardaí in 2021. He accepted her assertion that some of these were valueless or were presents that should be returned.

Continue Reading