Yoonus, R v

In sentencing for conspiracy to convert criminal proceeds, the sentence must reflect the basis on which the offender was convicted and sentenced. Where it is not established that the money derived from serious crime, and the dishonest conduct formed part only of an otherwise legitimate commercial operation, those limitations materially reduce culpability. Significant sums remain an aggravating feature.

A guilty plea must receive appropriate credit. A sentence which fails adequately to reflect those matters may be excessive.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Kingston-upon-Thames Crown Court to two conspiracies to convert the proceeds of drug trafficking and/or other criminal conduct. The offences concerned the exchange of sterling, described as street money, into large-denomination foreign currency through bureaux de change.

He was sentenced on 11 July 2003 to six years’ imprisonment on one count and three years’ imprisonment on the other, concurrently. He appealed against sentence with leave of the single judge.

The sentencing basis accepted that it had not been shown that the money came from drug trafficking or other serious crime. The appellant contended that he had a limited role, obtained little financial benefit, and had received insufficient credit for his guilty plea. The issue was whether the concurrent six-year sentence was excessive on that basis.

1. Appeal allowed. The court quashed the six-year sentence and substituted four years’ imprisonment. The concurrent sentences remained concurrent, producing a total sentence of four years.

2. The appellant had been sentenced on an agreed and express basis that the source of the money had not been shown to be serious crime. The court also accepted that the dishonest conduct was only part of a legitimate commercial operation. Those features had to inform the assessment of the appropriate sentence.

3. The substantial sums involved remained significant. However, they did not justify the six-year term once the accepted limits on the criminality were taken into account.

4. The court further treated the guilty plea as a material mitigating feature. In the circumstances, the sentence was too long, particularly after allowing proper credit for the plea.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted concurrent terms producing a total of four years’ imprisonment.

• Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames: On 11 July 2003, imposed concurrent terms of six years and three years’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to two conspiracies to convert criminal proceeds.