A Brooklyn legal proceeding on Monday observed the ardent refusal of Antony Abreu, 36, to admit guilt, a former drug dealer who has now been handed a life sentence. He received the irreversible punishment in response to his 2019 orchestrated murder of Xin ‘Chris’ Gu, a renowned property investor. Despite facing the latest chapters of his life behind bars, Antony maintained his innocence, asserting he was not involved in the crime.
Abreu was found guilty in April of year by a jury on homicide-for-hire charges linked to Gu’s assassination outside a karaoke bar in the Queens area in the winter of 2019. ‘I’m innocent. I didn’t kill anyone,’ a resilient Abreu conveyed to the court. He argued that his previous dealings with cannabis don’t define him as a ruthless killer, remaining adamant on his innocence.
‘Yes, I did sell marijuana, but selling marijuana doesn’t make me a killer, it doesn’t make me a ruthless person,’ he voiced to the chief justice. Curiously, despite the allegations, Abreu claimed that he had not come across Gu prior to the trial, dismissing any possible connection between them. Essentially stating, ‘I was never there, never killed that man, never anybody. I am an innocent man being sentenced to life today.’
The decision to eliminate Gu was reportedly made by his past employer, Manhattan-based property mogul, Qing Ming ‘Allen’ Yu. Yu’s resentment brewed when Gu decided to branch out with his own business, taking with him several of Yu’s clients. In his quest for retribution, Yu assembled a task force to carry out the punitive deed.
Under the guidance of Yu, this task force was assembled by his nephew. The trigger was assigned to be pulled by Abreu—a plan orchestrated by another player, accomplice Zhe Zhang. In a separate course of justice, both Yu and Zhang were also found guilty in the month of October of the same year.
Freighting details of the crime scene revealed that in the wee hours of February 12, 2019, Abreu carried out his assignment on Gu, who was obliviously waiting for an Uber at the Grand Slam KTV karaoke bar located in Flushing. Prosecutors in the case disclosed that the compensation offered to Abreu was a high-end Richard Mille wristwatch that bore a market value of over $100,000.
An official recited the chilling circumstances of the crime. ‘Mr. Abreu stalked and proceeded to brutally end the life of a young, naive man, with a remorseless gunshot to the back of the head,’ they said. This statement echoed within the courtroom walls, adding to the gravity of the grim episode.
Complicating matters further, Abreu was already serving a separate sentence of 24 years for a federal conviction tied to cocaine distribution in Mississippi. This revelation only added more fuel to the fiery trial.
In an attempt to overturn the verdict, Abreu’s defense attorney, Susan Kellman, petitioned against the judgment. However, the judge firmly rejected the motion. The gavel came down hard, admonishing Antony’s ‘reprehensible’ tesimony in his defense, condemning what the court perceived as blatant falsehoods in his account.
Expressing her dissatisfaction, Kellman argued that ‘No rational juror could connect the dots from the act of Zhang gifting Mr. Abreu a watch following the crime, to the conclusion that the timepiece served as payment for the homicide.’ Susan Kellman’s request in court veered towards an appeal rather than dwelling on the current ruling.
Kellman’s air during the hearing highlighted her focus on higher court possibilities. With future hearings in sight, she stated, ‘I think I’ll reserve my commentary for the court of appeals.’ Thus, although the day’s proceedings saw an end stage set for Antony Abreu, a promising appeal case was suggested.
At the culmination of an intense trial, Antony’s adamant denial, his attorney’s conviction to continue fighting, and the court’s stern rebuttal all pointed towards a bigger battle ahead. This case and trial underscore the severity and devastating implications of accusations of contract-based killing.
The court’s decision confirmed life imprisonment for Antony Abreu, yet the tale remains to be fully unfolded. His claims of innocence against the undeniable evidence pointing to his involvement kept all courtroom spectators intrigued. The next steps in this legal voyage, if pursued, remain to be seen.