In a complaint to the High Court, Yan Yan Fan, a Chinese woman associated with goods and funds labelled as crime proceeds, claimed that she acquired undue notoriety surpassing even that of Gerry Hutch. Fan, who rejected all criminal allegations, sought restraints on journalists, stating that she was recognised in a dessert parlour and is worried about her child. Asserting her innocence, Fan expressed that it is unjust to herself and her child; the involvement of the Criminal Assets Bureau (Cab) precludes her from securing professional employment.
Justice Alexander Owens, acknowledging Fan’s concern, stated that while he avoids “journalese”, he can’t restrain the press. He advised her to avoid reading the newspaper she takes issue with. Utilising the civil level proof standard ‘balance of probabilities’, Justice Owens made orders earlier this month under section 3(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act. The orders declared numerous luxury goods and approximately €146,000 linked to 47-year-old Fan and 49-year-old Guang Ying Wang, also known as ‘Richard’, as crime proceeds.
Wang didn’t contest the case while Fan, who sometimes goes by the name ‘Ivy’, denied any criminal involvement while representing herself in the court. According to the judge, the bureau accused the duo of colluding with other Chinese individuals in cannabis cultivation operations. The bureau pointed to substantial cash inflows into Fan, Wang, and Fan’s parents’ Irish bank accounts over the years, asserting illicit money was laundered via these accounts.
The bureau further alleged that Fan employed the ‘daigou’ or ‘surrogate shopping’ strategy to transfer luxury items to China; these transactions correlated with her parents’ money transfers to Ireland. Justice Owens, awarding two-thirds of its legal costs to the bureau on Wednesday, noted it hadn’t “won everything” in its action, which included one inappropriate element.
Post Fan’s claim of proving certain aspects, including her innocence, the judge stated his decision was already based on the evidence and suggested she could appeal if she disagreed. Fan, dissatisfied with the verdict, expressed gratitude towards the High Court’s staff for their amicability.
In his previous verdict, Justice Owens stated that Ms Fan had a notable connection to 7A Henrietta Place towards the end of 2012, the location of a cannabis cultivation enterprise with 1,490 plants valued at €1.1 million. He dismissed as extremely unlikely her assertion that the extensive expenses in Brown Thomas between 2016 and 2020 from two of her bank accounts were intended for Chinese friends and tourists. He pointed out that there were hardly any tourists in Ireland in most of 2020 due to the pandemic, and that China was in quarantine as well. He suggested that it was reasonable to assume that the funds managing these accounts were likely sourced from her unlawful activities in Ireland.