B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE JEREMY BAKER MR JUSTICE GOSS R E G I N A ISAAC OLARINOYE

Transcription

1 Neutral Citation Number: [2015] EWCA Crim 1503 No: 2015/2745/A3 IN THE COURT OF APPEAL CRIMINAL DIVISION Royal Courts of Justice Strand London, WC2A 2LL Friday, 7 August 2015 B e f o r e: MR JUSTICE JEREMY BAKER MR JUSTICE GOSS R E G I N A V ISAAC OLARINOYE Computer-Aided Transcript of the Stenograph Notes of WordWave International Limited trading as DTI 165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY Tel No: Fax No: (Official Shorthand Writers to the Court) Mr P Kiss-Wilson appeared on behalf of the Appellant The Crown did not appear and was not represented J U D G M E N T (Approved) Crown copyright

2 1. MR JUSTICE GOSS: On 1st May 2015 at the Central Criminal Court, the appellant was convicted after trial of two offences of acquiring criminal property, contrary to section 329(1)(a) of the Proceeds of Crime Act On 22nd May 2015 he was sentenced by the trial judge, Mr Recorder Khamisa QC, on count 3 on the indictment to 18 months' imprisonment, and on count 4 on the indictment to 24 months' imprisonment, those sentences being ordered to be served concurrently. The victim surcharge order was made in the appropriate amount and time ordered to count towards the sentence under section 240A of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 was set at 11 days. He now appeals with the permission of the single judge against the sentence. 2. The appellant was charged with a number of co-accused. Abdul Wakeel Ashimi changed his plea to guilty to all four counts on the indictment and was sentenced to a total of 40 months' imprisonment. Oluwatobi Wilson was convicted on count 4 and sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 24 months. He was acquitted on count 3. Collins Kehinde Adeleke and Elijah Hezekiah were convicted on count 4 and each was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment suspended for 24 months. Two other defendants were acquitted. 3. Both of the frauds behind the money laundering in which the appellant engaged involved the use of forged documents, stolen cheques, identity theft and there were a number of common features both in the wider fraud and the specific frauds. 4. The appellant played a part in a classic money laundering enterprise of some sophistication. Dishonestly misappropriated funds went into accounts and withdrawals were made in very quick succession and transferred into other accounts. Extensive use was made of online banking to create a circularity of movement of money within the accounts of the defendants to prevent investigators and the banks money laundering

3 departments from pinning down a pattern and from tracing the money laundering exercise. The criminals involved seemed to know how the banking system worked and were well aware of the red flags which were often indicators of money laundering so the transactions were kept below, in most cases, the limit of 5,000 in order to avoid suspicion or detection. 5. In order to continue the concealment and prevent detection, withdrawals were made from a variety of different branches. Those who were engaged in the money laundering operation had permanent accounts in the United Kingdom and were resident here, but in the wider fraud there were others who allowed their accounts to be used and who had left the country. The financial rewards were significant. 6. The background to the offence charged as count 3 was as follows. On 21st May 2012 during correspondence between two legitimate entities JR Whitehead, an engineering company based in Bolton, and Qingdao Yew Hing Ging Import and Export Company Ltd, somebody unconnected with the two legitimate businesses advised that Qingdao had changed his banking details and provided the accused Abdul Ashimi's Barclays Bank account details for payment. On that date, 21st May 2012, 7, which should have been paid to Qingdao was transferred to Abdul Ashimi. That same day, monies were transferred out of that account to various other individuals including 4,500 that was transferred to a Nat West account held by Oluwatobi Wilson. Then 2,000 was transferred from that account to the appellant's account. That implicated this appellant in that money laundering operation. 7. Abdul Ashimi claimed to deal with various transactions to do with trucking and a Caterpillar wheel loader. There was no such legitimate trade in trucks and the documentation, whether by way of invoice or receipt which had been created, was to

4 cover up Abdul Ashimi's tracks and involvement in the money laundering exercise. 8. We turn to count 4. Pearce Construction Barnstable Ltd were doing building work on a rebuild project of the dog kennels at Ilfracombe for a charity called The Dogs Trust which is based in London. Somebody unconnected pretended to represent Pearce Construction and arranged to provide new bank account details. The account was a Lloyds TSB account in the name of Kamrul Hassan. On 30th May 2012, The Dogs Trust transferred 143,000 to Kamrul Hassan's account in the belief that they were paying money to Pearce Construction. On 1st June 2012 there were a number of transactions out of Kamrul Hassan's account, one of which was for 38,400 which was transferred from that account to Abdul Ashimi's bank account for a company called Sanctuary Trucks. There was documentation which purported to be for the purchase of trucks or equipment described as a "used crusher" for 38,000. Some of the 38,400 eventually came into the appellant's account. Of that 38,400 approximately 3,700 was immediately transferred in five separate online transactions to five separate bank accounts, including 8,700 that was transferred to the account of Idris Bamgbala. On that same day it was transferred into that account and 4,050 was transferred into the appellant's account. 9. From the funds that were put into the various accounts, bank cards were used to purchase various items such as Rolex and Breitling watches, leaving reduced amounts in the accounts. 10. The defendants were arrested. The appellant in his interview said that he was a friend of Oluwatobi Wilson and Idris Bamgbala and asked for their assistance. A friend of his was in the United Kingdom on business buying and selling used vehicles to ship back to Nigeria. Whilst in the United Kingdom his friend had bought a vehicle from Sanctuary Trucks. There was some dispute as to the payment but, as Abdul Ashimi owed that

5 friend the money, the appellant arranged for it to be paid into the bank accounts of Oluwatobi Wilson and Idris Bamgbala. It follows from the appellant's conviction that this account of innocent association with what was patently a money laundering exercise was rejected by the jury. 11. In total the appellant's account received 7,900 in three separate transfers. 12. When sentencing, the judge said that all the defendants were sentenced on a case specific basis and as a result of the knowledge he gleaned during the trial in relation to the part each played. They had all been involved knowingly in the laundering of money to make a quick buck, regardless of any mitigation. It was for financial gain, albeit not large amounts of money. It was also important to explain the wider fraud involved before turning to the specific fraud which led the money laundering in which the defendants being sentenced fully participated. 13. The effect of the fraud and the money laundering, said the judge, was to undermine confidence in the banking system and no doubt brought misery to most of the people who were involved in it, whether they were individuals or, as in one case, a charity, The Dogs Trust, or small businesses such as JR Whitehead and Pearce Construction, or the numerous people who were waiting to receive cheques. The court found beyond doubt that the claimed business in the buying and selling of trucks did not exist. 14. The judge said he had read and considered the pre-sentence reports, submissions and documents placed before him, as well as the money laundering guidelines. He accepted that immediate imprisonment in this appellant's case would affect his family. He was a married man with a young child. He did not give evidence and stood by his police interview account to which we have already referred. He had graduated from university with a degree in business and information technology, so he was a bright man. He was

6 employed as an IT administrator. The references from his wife, the college and another from a church were before the court and considered. It was accepted he posed a low risk of committing similar offences. The judge also referred to the principle of totality and said that that had to be borne in mind. 15. The judge said in sentencing: i. "... I find that you are in category 5, that high culpability applies to your case here. You were not in a leading role but you were in a significant role, where you chose your friendship, used your friendship, to involve at least three other individuals and exploited them. They looked up to you as an older man. You gave the impression of success, money and wealth, and they were influenced by it and wanted the same. They went on to commit criminal offences with you. ii. This was a sophisticated criminal exercise, and you were a significant part of it, although, I accept, not playing a leading role." 16. Bearing in mind the principle of totality, on count 3 where the sum involved was 7, the sentence was set at 18 months. On count 4, 38,400 was involved, made a total amount of 46,162.73, so there would be a sentence of 24 months' imprisonment but those sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 17. The point that has been taken by Mr Kiss-Wilson on behalf of the appellant is that the sentence was manifestly excessive and there was no reason why the sentence of imprisonment that inevitably had to be passed should not have been suspended. 18. We have considered both those submissions with care. We have had regard to the definitive guideline. This was a category 5 case. In terms of culpability the judge found that culpability was high. He considered the appellant fell, if not in category A, high up in category B. In those circumstances the starting point, if it was a category B offence, was one of 18 months with a range of 26 weeks to three years' custody for a man of previous good character after a trial. If this was culpability A, the starting point would be

7 three years with a range of 18 months to four years' custody. 19. We are quite satisfied that the judge, having obtained a clear view as to the culpability of this appellant during the course of the trial, was entitled to determine that the case fell within category B at the highest level. Therefore, the sentence that he in fact passed of two years' imprisonment was entirely an appropriate sentence. We can see no basis for criticising the sentence as being manifestly excessive. 20. So far as suspension of that sentence is concerned, the judge had regard to all the circumstances obtaining in the appellant's case. This was a serious offence. He contested his guilt. The impact on his family will be significant but, regrettably, it is often the case that those to an offender also suffer by reason of the sentence of the court. In this case we can see of no exceptional circumstances justifying the suspension of the appropriate sentence of imprisonment. For all these reasons, this appeal dismissed.