The Fifth Witness Statement of Chris Block

The Fifth Witness Statement of Christian Karl Block (“Chris Block”) requires critical examination, not merely for internal inconsistencies, but in light of his broader public conduct, his disregard for his own privacy claims and the circumstances of the court proceedings, which appear to have been structured in a manner that shields certain individuals from scrutiny while exposing Karel Manasco to reputational harm

Chris Block’s Assertions on Privacy

In his witness statement, Chris Block stresses the necessity of an interim privacy order to safeguard the reputations of him and other individuals associated with Mansion Group. He frames these proceedings as highly sensitive, submitting that private hearings were necessary to prevent premature media exposure of allegations.

However, Chris Block’s own LinkedIn activity demonstrates that he has consistently and publicly promoted articles, news reports and judicial outcomes linked to these proceedings. His posts are visible to the general public, including those without LinkedIn accounts.

Examples include:

• Publicly posting a YouTube video referring to the “warrant issued” for Karel Manasco (two weeks ago).
• Sharing a Chronicle Gibraltar article on the same topic (two weeks ago).
• Promoting GBC coverage purporting to vindicate Mansion Group’s litigation stance (one month ago).
• Circulating Gibraltar Supreme Court documentation and commending Mansion Group’s legal counsel (on multiple occasions).

It is incompatible for Chris Block to invoke a right to privacy while simultaneously using a public platform to publicise and comment on the very proceedings he claims should remain confidential. His actions materially undermine the credibility of the Court's interim privacy protections, casting serious doubt over the genuine necessity of the measures sought.

Thus, the privacy assertions made by Chris Block in his witness statement appear inconsistent with his public conduct.

Andrew Tait’s Engagement

Similarly andrew Tait, formerly Group General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer of Mansion Group from August 2007 to March 2017, has shown public support for Chris Block’s posts by repeatedly endorsing them through LinkedIn activity.

Mr Tait’s involvement is material for the following reasons:

• He held senior legal and compliance responsibilities during periods now subject to allegations of regulatory non-compliance and governance deficiencies, as set out in the amended defence documentation.
• His public engagement with material critical of Karel Manasco raises legitimate concerns about impartiality and reputational bias.

As a former senior officer, Mr Tait bore significant responsibility for oversight and compliance during the relevant periods. His continued public endorsement of critical material about Karel Manasco risks reinforcing a perception of selective narrative-building, particularly where he himself was part of the governance structure under scrutiny.

This conduct highlights a concerning double standard: seeking privacy protections on the one hand, while engaging in public commentary on the other.

Other Individuals and the Broader Context

Other individuals referenced in Chris Block’s statement, including lawyers from ISOLAS LLP such as James Montado and individuals connected to the Gibraltar Broadcasting Corporation (GBC), have contributed to shaping a public narrative concerning these proceedings.

For example:

• James Montado, a Partner at Isolas LLC and a key legal representative of Mansion Group, concurrently served on the board of GBC, Gibraltar’s public broadcaster.
• This dual role raises serious concerns regarding institutional independence and potential conflicts of interest, particularly under the standards articulated in Gibraltar’s Broadcasting Act 2012.
• Reporting on the Mansion proceedings has been notably selective, often omitting or minimising the perspective of Karel Manasco, thereby contributing to an unbalanced public portrayal.

There is a clear inconsistency in the stance taken by those seeking confidentiality orders in court whilst simultaneously using external channels, including GBC and LinkedIn, to advance narratives adverse to Karel Manasco.

Court Procedure and Privacy Measures

Judicial materials reviewed suggest that interim privacy orders and selective disclosure orders were granted largely on the basis of unilateral submissions made by Chris Block and Mansion Group’s legal representatives, notwithstanding broader concerns regarding judicial impartiality.

Key observations include:

• Correspondence described as the “Without Prejudice Letter” from Karel Manasco’s former legal representatives warned that Mansion Group sought to use privacy selectively to control public narratives.
• The comprehensive amended defence, which contained serious allegations regarding tax practices, licensing irregularities and judicial improprieties, was not made publicly accessible due to interim privacy measures.
• In contrast, Mansion Group and Chris Block selectively disclosed elements supportive of their claims while preventing equal disclosure of Karel Manasco’s substantive defence.

This asymmetry in procedural application raises significant concerns as to whether privacy measures were genuinely employed to protect judicial integrity or rather to shape reputational outcomes.

Public Exposure of Karel Manasco and Family

Whilst Chris Block and Mansion Group (and the ultimate beneficial shareholder) sought judicial measures to protect their reputations, Karel Manasco and his family have been subject to extensive public exposure in both domestic and international press outlets.

For example:

• Personal details, financial information and untested allegations were reported shortly after court filings by outlets including GBC, Chronicle Gibraltar, OffshoreAlert and through YouTube links circulated by Chris Block.
• Meanwhile, Mansion Group’s own internal practices, including B2B licensing structures potentially in violation of European regulations, as referenced in Karel Manasco’s amended defence, have largely escaped scrutiny.

This imbalance in the public handling of reputations raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of proceedings and may constitute a violation of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair hearing.

The Fifth Witness Statement of Chris Block is seriously undermined by:

• His repeated public commentary on matters subject to confidentiality orders.
• His coordinated engagement with others, including Andrew Tait and associated legal representatives, to promote a selective narrative.
• The use of court procedure not solely to protect integrity, but seemingly to suppress the presentation of material allegations against Mansion Group.
• A broader context of concerns regarding media independence, procedural fairness and impartiality.

Accordingly, the credibility of Chris Block’s evidence requires careful scrutiny. His assertions relating to privacy must be treated with caution and any procedural protections afforded to him or Mansion Group and the ultimate beneficial shareholder must be carefully re-examined in light of the documented conduct.

Legal Disclaimer and Ongoing Investigations

As with all editorial content published by Malta-Media, no allegation of unlawful conduct is made against any individual or entity by reference herein. The information presented is derived from publicly accessible registries, corporate databases, internal documentation and confidential submissions believed to be accurate and reliable at the time of publication. Interpretations, where offered, reflect the editorial team’s understanding of jurisdictional structures and regulatory environments and are not intended to imply misconduct or unlawful intent.

This article forms part of an ongoing investigative series examining the legal, financial and operational structures within the online gambling sector. The aim is to contribute to public understanding by outlining governance models, licensing regimes and cross-border frameworks. Malta-Media acknowledges the complexity of these issues and welcomes clarifications or formal responses from any individuals or organisations named. Substantiated responses will be published in full, unedited and with equal prominence.

We continue to invite confidential submissions through our encrypted reporting platform. Individuals with information relevant to this or related investigations may contact us securely and anonymously via our whistleblower form.

FAQs

What is the main issue with Chris Block's fifth witness statement?
The main issue is the contradiction between Block’s claims for privacy in court and his public promotion of the proceedings on LinkedIn, undermining his credibility.

Why is Chris Block's LinkedIn activity significant?
His LinkedIn posts publicly share content about the case, contradicting his request for privacy orders meant to protect reputations, raising concerns about his intent.

How does Andrew Tait factor into the situation?
Andrew Tait, a former Mansion Group executive, publicly supported Block’s posts, which may imply bias given his previous legal and compliance role during disputed periods.

What concerns are raised about media involvement in the case?
The article questions the independence of reporting by GBC, especially since James Montado, involved in the case, also served on GBC’s board, suggesting potential conflicts of interest.

What are the alleged procedural issues in the court process?
Privacy and disclosure orders appeared one-sided, with Mansion Group selectively revealing favorable information while Karel Manasco’s defense remained confidential.

Was Karel Manasco publicly exposed during the proceedings?
Yes, Manasco and his family faced significant media exposure, while Mansion Group and Block were shielded by court privacy measures, raising fairness concerns.

What broader legal principles may have been violated?
The article suggests potential violations of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the right to a fair hearing.

What role did ISOLAS LLP and GBC play in shaping public narrative?
Individuals associated with both entities allegedly influenced media coverage to favor Mansion Group, sidelining Manasco’s position and affecting public perception.

What does the article suggest about the purpose of privacy measures?
It argues these measures may have been used not to protect judicial integrity but to control the narrative and protect Mansion Group from scrutiny.

Is there any ongoing investigation related to this case?
Yes, the article is part of an investigative series on the online gambling sector, inviting further confidential disclosures via an encrypted platform.