Cave, R v

For money-laundering offences under Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the central criminality is knowingly dealing with property derived from criminal conduct. Sentence depends on the assistance, support and encouragement given to crime, the launderer’s knowledge of the antecedent offending, and the amount involved.

Where the precise source of the money is not proved, it may be given limited weight. The distinction between drug-related and other criminal proceeds is less significant under the 2002 Act. A single courier transaction and a comparatively lower sum may mitigate sentence, but a trusted and pre-arranged role, previous similar offending and commission while on licence are material aggravating features.

The appellant pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Cardiff to conspiracy to transfer criminal property. The conspiracy concerned the transfer of £65,480 following a pre-arranged meeting. He had hired the vehicle in a false name and was on licence after a conviction for possession of heroin with intent to supply.

The sentencing judge imposed three years’ imprisonment. The appellant appealed on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive, relying on his early plea, the single transaction, the sum involved, and his asserted role as a courier. The principal issue was the proper sentence for his knowing involvement in the transfer of criminal property where no finding established that he knew the money was the proceeds of drug trafficking.

Appeal allowed. The court substituted a sentence of two years and four months’ imprisonment for the three-year sentence imposed below.

1. The appellant had admitted guilty knowledge for the purposes of Section 327(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. That was more culpable than dealing with criminal property on mere suspicion. The gravamen of the offence was knowingly dealing with the proceeds of criminal activity.
2. R v Monfries [2004] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 3 remained helpful when assessing sentence under the 2002 Act. Relevant matters included the assistance given to criminal conduct, the extent of the offender’s knowledge of the antecedent offence, and the amount laundered. As the 2002 Act covered benefit from all criminal conduct, the precise source of the money carried less importance than it had under the former legislative scheme.
3. The judge had made no finding that the appellant knew the money was drug-trafficking proceeds. The probable discussion of drugs did not establish that knowledge. The source of the money could therefore receive only relatively limited weight.
4. The appellant nevertheless played a significant, trusted and pre-arranged role. His previous involvement as a courier in class A drug supply, and his offending while on licence, aggravated the case. The single transaction and the £65,000 sum were relevant mitigating features.
5. A term of four and a half years after trial was excessive. The appropriate trial sentence was three and a half years. Full credit for the early guilty plea produced the substituted term of two years and four months.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted two years and four months’ imprisonment: [2008] EWCA Crim 1119.
• Crown Court at Cardiff — Following a guilty plea to conspiracy to transfer criminal property, imposed three years’ imprisonment on 3 March 2008.