Charlie Carrel has escalated the growing Britney Jing controversy by accusing Xuan Liu of making what he called a “hostage video” for Jing. His comments came after Liu published a detailed statement defending her role in the dispute and explaining what she says Venetian staff told her about the night at the centre of C Ye’s $18,000 claim.
The latest exchange does not settle the original disagreement between Jing and C Ye. Instead, it has opened another front in a story that has already led Hustler Casino Live to temporarily remove Britney Jing from its broadcasts while it reviews the allegations surrounding her.
Xuan Liu Defends Her Account
Liu’s statement focuses heavily on what she personally knows and what she says was relayed to her by Venetian staff. She stresses that she does not know exactly what happened between Jing and C Ye and says she has never claimed otherwise.
According to Liu, Venetian floor staff gave her an estimate of C Ye’s chip stack following the disputed cash game. She also says a member of staff later showed her a Post-it note containing a figure that she was told represented the amount C Ye had at the cage.
Liu says surveillance footage was checked as part of the casino’s handling of the situation. However, she does not claim that she personally watched the footage.
She says she has a case number connected to the casino review and maintains that her comments have always reflected information given to her by Venetian employees. Liu also accepts that casino staff or security could potentially have made a mistake, rather than presenting their account as infallible.
“I don’t know if they made a mistake. I don’t know if security made a mistake.”
Liu says numerous people saw her speaking with casino staff that evening. She also says attempts to obtain further confirmation from the Venetian have not produced anything public because the casino does not want to become involved in what it considers a civil dispute.
Carrel Says Liu’s Video Hurt C Ye
Charlie Carrel responded directly to Liu and strongly rejected any suggestion that he and C Ye had unfairly portrayed her as dishonest.
Carrel says they originally protected Liu’s anonymity when discussing her role in the situation. He also says they had made clear that they did not believe Liu was lying about the conversations she had with casino staff.
His criticism instead focuses on a later video Liu made concerning Jing. Carrel described that video as a “hostage video for Britney” and argued that it contributed to C Ye being portrayed negatively.
Carrel claims Liu effectively supported Jing’s version of events without having enough evidence to determine what had actually happened. Liu’s latest statement takes a more cautious position, repeatedly stressing that she does not know the full truth of the dispute.
Carrel Claims More People Have Come Forward
Carrel also broadened the story beyond the original staking dispute. He claimed people across three continents have now approached him with allegations involving Jing.
Those claims have not been independently established. Carrel did not provide evidence supporting every allegation within the post itself, so they remain accusations rather than proven findings.
That distinction is especially important because the controversy has grown rapidly since C Ye first accused Britney Jing of owing her $18,000. What began as a disagreement over a 30% staking arrangement has developed into a wider argument involving player relationships, game access and Jing’s position around high-stakes poker games.
What Does the Venetian Evidence Actually Show?
The Venetian remains central because both sides continue to refer to events inside the casino while the evidence itself remains unavailable to the public.
C Ye says she finished the session with approximately $187,000 in chips and claims those chips were subsequently placed into Jing’s bag. Jing disputes the resulting allegation that she owes C Ye $18,000 under their staking arrangement.
Liu says Venetian employees gave her information concerning C Ye’s stack and says she was told surveillance had been reviewed. The crucial limitation is that neither the public nor independent observers have seen the footage.
A case number may support Liu’s claim that a casino investigation took place. It does not, on its own, establish exactly what the cameras showed or prove either side’s interpretation of the disputed session.
That leaves a significant gap between evidence existing and evidence being publicly verifiable.
HCL Review Gives the Row Bigger Consequences
The argument would ordinarily remain a private staking dispute. Hustler Casino Live’s decision to review the allegations has changed that.
HCL has not announced that Jing cheated, colluded with another player or committed any other wrongdoing. It has instead temporarily removed her from broadcasts while reviewing the allegations and circumstances surrounding its games.
That makes Carrel and Liu’s disagreement relevant beyond social media drama. If HCL is examining financial relationships between players, seating arrangements or conduct around its games, testimony from people connected with the wider dispute could become important.
For now, however, the biggest unanswered question remains unchanged.
Everyone is talking about what Venetian surveillance supposedly established, but the footage itself has never been made public. Until something more definitive emerges, the poker community is still trying to reconstruct the truth from competing accounts of evidence it cannot see.
