Griffiths & Anor, R v

Money-laundering offences normally require immediate custody. Sentence must nevertheless reflect the particular gravity of the offending, including whether it was an organised laundering operation or a single attempt to frustrate confiscation.

A professional who fails to make the required disclosure under section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 breaches a stringent gatekeeping obligation. Custody will almost invariably be necessary. The sentence must, however, respect the jury’s particular verdict and may take account of the exceptional professional and personal consequences of conviction.

Following a two-week jury trial, Mr Pattison, an estate agent and financial-services provider, was convicted of entering a money-laundering arrangement and acquiring criminal property. Mr Griffiths, a solicitor, was acquitted of the substantive money-laundering counts but convicted of failing to make a required disclosure under section 330(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

The offending concerned the proposed purchase, at a substantial undervalue, of a house owned by convicted drug dealers while confiscation proceedings were pending. Pattison received concurrent terms of three years’ imprisonment and Griffiths received 15 months. Both appealed against sentence. The central issue was whether the custodial terms exceeded what was necessary for these offences.

1. The sentence appeals were allowed to the extent of reducing both terms of imprisonment. Pattison’s concurrent three-year sentences were quashed and replaced with concurrent terms of 27 months. Griffiths’s 15-month sentence was quashed and replaced with six months.

2. For Pattison, the court accepted that custodial sentences for organising a cover-up or laundering criminal proceeds are virtually inevitable, and that an attempt to defeat confiscation is serious. The sentencing judge’s starting point was nevertheless too high. This was a one-off, greed-driven transaction rather than an organised laundering operation or the concealed international movement of currency. The absence of a guilty plea did not place it in the same sentencing bracket as the more serious comparative cases.

3. For Griffiths, the conviction was for failing to disclose when he had reasonable grounds for knowing or suspecting money laundering under section 330(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. He had been acquitted of offences requiring actual knowledge or suspicion. Sentencing could not add a further gloss inconsistent with that verdict.

4. Solicitors are gatekeepers of financial probity and must comply scrupulously with statutory disclosure obligations. A custodial sentence was therefore inevitable. However, the offence was properly treated as a lapse from the high professional standards expected of a solicitor, rather than an offence committed for substantial personal profit. The destruction of his practice and the serious personal consequences of conviction meant that six months was sufficient.

5. The court underlined that all professionals handling money or financial transactions must observe the legislation strictly, and that failure will attract an inevitable penal consequence.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — sentence appeals allowed to the extent stated in [2006] EWCA Crim 2155.
• Trial court — following a jury trial, Pattison received concurrent three-year terms and Griffiths received 15 months’ imprisonment. The court and any citation are not stated in the judgment.