Suchedina v R

A conspiracy to commit money laundering requires an intention, or in an appropriate case knowledge, that the money is of illicit origin. Actual suspicion, and reasonable grounds for suspicion, are insufficient for conspiracy.

An either/or count alleging an agreement to launder money irrespective of which of two illicit sources produced it alleges one valid agreement and is not duplicitous. For an agreement concerning future unidentified money, the Crown need not prove its actual origin. Whether proof of actual origin is required where the alleged agreement is inferred from identified transactions depends on the facts and the scope of the agreement.

Late appeals following a change in the law may be refused where refusal causes no substantial injustice.

Four money-laundering appeals and applications were heard together after the House of Lords decision in Saik. Each Crown Court case had involved an either/or conspiracy count based on offences under the Drug Trafficking Act 1994 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988.

Suchedina had been convicted after the jury was directed that reasonable grounds for suspicion could establish the mens rea. Hosier and Lehaney sought leave out of time following convictions at Canterbury Crown Court. Hadley, who remained at large, similarly sought leave after his co-defendant's appeal had succeeded.

The central issues were the validity and mens rea of an either/or money-laundering conspiracy, the relevance of proof of the money's actual origin, and whether the late applicants had suffered substantial injustice.

1. Suchedina's appeal was allowed. The conviction was unsafe because the jury had been directed that reasonable grounds for suspicion could suffice. For conspiracy, however, suspicion is insufficient: the prosecution must prove intention, or in an appropriate case knowledge, that the money is of illicit origin. The conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered.
2. An either/or count alleging an agreement to launder money irrespective of whether it derived from drug trafficking or other criminal conduct is valid. It alleges a single agreement to launder illicit money, whatever its particular criminal provenance. If carried out in accordance with that intention, it necessarily involves one or both substantive offences, within section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. It is therefore not duplicitous, and the prosecution need not prove that the defendant knew which of the two sources generated the money.
3. Section 1(2) requires intention or knowledge for conspiracy. A defendant who merely suspects, or is prepared to take the risk, that money is illicit does not have the required mens rea. Where an agreement concerns future unidentified money, proof of its actual origin is not required. Where the alleged conspiracy is confined to an identified transaction and no antecedent or continuing agreement can be inferred, proof of actual origin may be needed to establish the necessary intention or knowledge. The proper direction depends on the evidence and the agreement alleged.
4. The court ordered Suchedina to be retried at Inner London Crown Court, with unconditional bail pending arraignment. The evidence was capable of supporting an inference of an antecedent agreement concerning future illicit money, and the public interest, including the outstanding confiscation consequences, justified a retrial.
5. Hosier, Lehaney and Hadley were refused leave to appeal out of time. Applying the substantial-injustice approach, the court held that the evidence in each case strongly supported criminal intent and an agreement to launder illicit money. Although Hadley's count and direction were defective, the evidence overwhelmingly supported actual suspicion, illicit origin and an agreement extending to future transactions. Refusal of leave caused no substantial injustice.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Suchedina's conviction was quashed and a retrial ordered. The court refused the late applications for leave to appeal by Hosier, Lehaney and Hadley.
2. Crown Court: Suchedina and Hadley had been convicted of either/or money-laundering conspiracies. Hosier and Lehaney were convicted at Canterbury Crown Court on 15 November 2004.