The Attorney General is staying silent on the collapse of a businesswoman’s £200,000 fraud trial due to a lack of evidence.
Lincolnshire-born Michelle Yuksel had been accused of cheating foreign business owners out of thousands via her second-hand clothing businesses – Parisma and Logistics2Go – between 2010 and 2013, which she denied.
Her Royal Court trial came following more than half-a-decade of investigations.
Pictured: The £200k fraudulent conversion case against Ms Yuksel fell apart on the trial's 11th day.
It had been scheduled to last two weeks, and had seen a number of witnesses, including former employees and alleged victims, give evidence – some of whom had appeared via video link from Africa.
But on Tuesday the case fell apart, with the Deputy Bailiff directing the jury to return a ‘not guilty’ verdict after it emerged that there was “no evidence” underpinning the allegations of ‘fraudulent conversion’ against Ms Yuksel.
The revelation came on the 11th day – more than halfway through the trial, which itself had taken place following a probe into Ms Yuksel and her businesses spanning six years.
Pictured: The Attorney General declined to comment on the collapsed case against Ms Yuksel.
The collapse of the case has since raised questions about how the case reached court without evidence, and associated legal costs.
In the immediate aftermath of the trial's collapse, no statement or explanation of the decision to prosecute was forthcoming from the island's top prosecutor Attorney General, Robert MacRae, who holds responsibility for deciding which cases should progress through the island's courts.
Contacted by Express, a Law Officers’ Department spokesperson commented: "The Attorney General is yet to consider the ruling made by the judge and accordingly is unable to make any comment at this time."
Pictured: The Deputy Bailiff told the jury they should not consider their time to have been "wasted" despite the trial's collapse.
Speaking on the day the trial broke down, the Deputy Bailiff told the jury that they should not consider the time spent on the trial "wasted", adding that it was essential for the evidence to come out in court.
He also noted that the case, having failed in the criminal court, may now give rise to civil claims by the individuals involved.
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.
Once your comment has been submitted, it won’t appear immediately. There is no need to submit it more than once. Comments are published at the discretion of Bailiwick Publishing, and will include your username.