Money Laundering Cases
RCPO v C
A Solicitor - an MLRO during the time a client had laundered fraudulently obtained money through the firm's client account - was cleared of six counts of money laundering in January 2010, after a judge ruled that a fair trial was impossible due to delays in bringing the prosecution. [2010] EWCA Crim 97
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors
Held that the Fraud Act 2006 s.13 had removed the privilege against self-incrimination in respect of an offence under section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. [2009] EWCA Civ 1124
SOCA v Pelekanos
A claim by the Serious Organised Crime Agency in which it was held that the court could make a recovery order under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to a false statement in a mortgage application form, albeit this particular application was unsuccessful. The court stressed that this should be more widely known, and that it would be desirable for mortgage-providers to spell out in their application forms the possible consequence of a misstatement. [2009] EWHC 2307 (QB)
Shah v HSBC Private Bank (UK) Ltd
Court of Appeal decision following claim for failing to carry out customer’s instructions following notification to SOCA struck out; suspicion was a purely subjective matter, and absent any allegation of want of good faith, did not have to be a reasonable one. The Court of Appeal confirmed the test of suspicion as set out in the cases of Da Silva and K Limited - a suspicion does not have to be on reasonable grounds, just that the possibility has to be 'more than fanciful'. [2010] EWCA Civ 31
SOCA v Pelekanos
was a claim by the Serious Organised Crime Agency in which it was held that the court could make a recovery order under Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in relation to a false statement in a mortgage application form, albeit this particular application was unsuccessful. The court stressed that this should be more widely known, and that it would be desirable for mortgage providers to spell out in their application forms the possible consequence of a misstatement. [2009] EWHC 2307 (QB)
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov & Ors
held that the Fraud Act 2006 s.13 had removed the privilege against self-incrimination in respect of an offence under section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. [2009] EWCA Civ 1124
R (Faisaltex Ltd) v Preston Crown Court and Others
[2008] EWHC 2832 (Admin)
Attorney-General of Zambia v Meer Care & Desai
A solicitors who failed to heed the Law Society’s Blue Card warning on money laundering was foolish but not dishonest. Appeal allowed. [2008] EWCA Civ 875
Irwin Mitchell v Revenue & Customs Prosecution Office and Allad
Solicitors could transfer money held on client account to office account to pay costs without requiring variation to a restraint order under section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 s.41. Transcript for Lawtel subscribers >>
R v NW and others
This case considers whether the Crown must prove what type of criminal conduct generated the benefit represented by criminal property in money laundering cases. [2008] EWCA Crim 2
R v Green
Where one defendant receives money or other property jointly on behalf of several other defendants each defendant is regarded as having received the whole of it for the purposes of confiscation proceedings. It does not matter if one defendant had received the whole sum, retained his 'share' and passed the balance on. The capacity in which he received it is the test [2007] EWCA Crim 1248
UMBS v SOCA
SOCA could be subject to judicial review for refusing to revisit its decision refusing consent. [2007] EWCA Civ 406
Hogan v DPP
[2007] EWHC 978 (Admin). Transcript available to Lawtel subscribers >>
R v I K
The Court of Appeal held that the proceeds of evading tax on income which was derived from a legitimate trade could amount to ’criminal property’, distinguishing the case of Gabriel [2006] EWCA Crim 229 which appeared to have caused confusion in the minds of some practitioners. R v IK [2007] EWCA Crim 491
Assets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and another
The first final decision on a contested application by the Assets Recovery Agency for a Recovery Order, based on allegations of mortgage fraud, conspiracies to defraud and money laundering. The court dismissed an argument that no property was obtained from alleged mortgage fraud based on R v Preddy [1996] AC 815. [2007] EWHC 162 (QB). Court of Appeal judgment [2008] EWCA Civ 104 >>
R v Gabriel
Profits made from trading in legitimate goods were not necessarily converted into criminal property by a failure to declare them to the Inland Revenue or the Department of Work and Pensions. The failure to declare the profits for the purposes of income tax could give rise to a criminal offence but it did not make the trading itself an offence. 2006] EWCA Crim 229
R v Da Silva
Decided under s.93A Criminal Justice Act 1988 but equally relevant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The words "suspect" and "suspicion" meant that the defendant had to think that there was a possibility, which was more than fanciful, that the relevant facts existed. A vague feeling of unease would not suffice, but the statute did not require the suspicion to be clear or firmly grounded or based upon reasonable grounds. [2006] EWCA Crim 1654
Barlow Clowes International Ltd v Eurotrust International Ltd
A civil case against an alleged money launderer based upon the defendant’s dishonest assistance in a breach of trust, the Privy Council held that a person could know, and could certainly suspect, that he was assisting in a misappropriation of money without knowing that the money was held on trust or what a trust meant: it was sufficient, on the facts of that case, that the defendant "entertained a clear suspicion" that there had been a misappropriate of monies. [2005] UKPC 37
Abou-Rahmah and others v Abacha and others
Appeal dismissed against finding that a Nigerian bank was not liable for knowing/dishonest assistance in breach of trust. The manager had suspected in a general way that the parties might be involved in money laundering, but did not have suspicions about the two transactions which gave rise to the claim. [2006] EWCA Civ 1492
K Limited v National Westminster Bank and others
The court would not grant an injunction requiring a bank to pay money to a customer's order, where the bank had reported a suspicion of money laundering and sought consent, nor would the court permit cross-examination as to the grounds for the bank's suspicion; it was a subjective test and there was no legal requirement that there should be reasonable grounds for suspicion. The bank had adopted the correct procedure to avoid a tipping off offence, when application was made for the injunction, by instructing solicitors to write pursuant to section 333 (2) (c) and (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 identifying the bare fact that the bank had made a disclosure to Customs. [2006] EWCA Civ 1039
R v Liaquat Ali, Akhtar Hussain and Mohsan Khan Shahid Bhatti
The Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) quashed three convictions on the grounds that the prosecution had to prove that the defendants knew, and did not just suspect, that the cash was the proceeds of crime. The prosecution had alleged in substance that the conspirators had concealed, disguised or removed from the jurisdiction bank notes knowing or having reasonable grounds to suspect that in whole or in part they represented another person's proceeds of drug traffickng. [2005] EWCA Crim 87
Squirrell v National Westminster Bank [2005] EWHC 664(Ch)Lawtel subscribers can access the full text here >>
Bowman v Fels [2005] EWCA Civ 226
P v P [2003] EWHC 2260
Tayeb v HSBC [2004] EWHC 1529
Bank of Scotland v A Limited [2001] EWCA Civ 52
C v S [1998] EWCA Civ 1474
R v Montila [2004] UKHL 50