Ramzan & Ors, R v

For conspiracy to launder money, suspicion of an illicit source is insufficient. Under section 1(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, the conspirator must know that identified money has the relevant illicit origin, or intend that future unidentified money will have it. A criminal purpose of assisting another to avoid prosecution or confiscation does not itself establish that additional mental element. It may support an evidential inference, but the jury must decide it.

Where a later decision corrects a previous understanding of the law, an extension of time to appeal is granted only if refusal would cause substantial injustice. The court will not substitute a broad course-of-conduct money-laundering conviction unless the jury’s verdict identifies a substantive offence which it must have found proved.

Several defendants had been convicted, before R v Saik [2006] UKHL 18, of conspiracies to commit money-laundering offences under section 49(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 or section 93C(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The trial directions treated knowledge or suspicion of an illicit origin as sufficient.

Ramzan’s case reached the court by a Criminal Cases Review Commission reference. Vakilipour had leave to appeal. Malik, Carr, Syed, O’Brien and Israel sought substantial extensions of time. The Crown submitted that the convictions remained safe because the juries had found the defendants acted for the criminal purpose required by the substantive offences. Alternatively, it sought substituted substantive convictions.

The common issues were whether Saik made the conspiracy convictions unsafe, whether leave out of time should be granted, and whether convictions for substantive money laundering could be substituted.

1. Ramzan’s and Vakilipour’s appeals were allowed. Their conspiracy convictions were quashed because the directions that suspicion of illicit origin sufficed were wrong in light of R v Saik [2006] UKHL 18. The court ordered retrials. Ramzan was to be retried at Leeds Crown Court and Vakilipour at Harrow Crown Court, subject to circuit directions.

2. The relevant illicit source of the money is a fact or circumstance necessary for commission of the substantive offence. Accordingly, section 1(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977 requires proof that a conspirator knew of the source where the money was identified, or intended that future unidentified money would have that source. Suspicion, although sufficient for the substantive offences, does not meet that requirement for conspiracy.

3. The additional criminal purpose under section 49(2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and section 93C(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 did not cure the misdirection. Proof that a defendant intended to assist another to avoid prosecution or confiscation may provide powerful evidence from which an intention as to illicit origin can be inferred. It does not compel that inference as a matter of law. The juries had not been asked to decide whether that further state of mind was proved.

4. Leave to appeal out of time was refused for Malik, Carr, Syed, O’Brien and Israel. The established practice permits an extension after a later correction of the law only where refusal would cause substantial injustice. Each applicant had admitted extensive money handling or had been found to have suspected illicit origin and acted with the criminal purpose. They must therefore have committed serious substantive money-laundering offences, even though their conspiracy convictions could not stand.

5. The court refused to substitute substantive convictions under sections 3 and 3A of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. The verdicts showed that some substantive offences had been committed, but did not identify a particular transaction which the jury must have found proved. The offences under sections 49(2) and 93C(2) were not continuous activity offences capable of being charged in the proposed compendious form. Substitution was especially inappropriate for either/or conspiracy counts.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Ramzan’s and Vakilipour’s conspiracy convictions were quashed following R v Saik [2006] UKHL 18; retrials were ordered. Leave to appeal out of time was refused for Malik, Carr, Syed, O’Brien and Israel.
• Criminal Cases Review Commission: Ramzan’s conviction was referred under section 9 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1995; the reference stood as an appeal.
• Trial proceedings: The defendants were convicted between 2001 and 2002 of conspiracies to commit money laundering. The trial courts are not stated in the judgment.