Smale, R v

Sentence for entering into a money-laundering arrangement should reflect the assistance, support and encouragement given to criminal conduct. There is no necessary direct relationship between the sentence for laundering and that for the antecedent offence.

The court should assess the launderer’s knowledge of the antecedent offending, the amount involved, any financial benefit, and the extent and duration of the role. A custodial sentence may remain appropriate where the offender acted on suspicion rather than knowledge, but limited involvement and absence of gain may materially reduce the proper term.

Ann Smale and her son, Christopher Smale, pleaded guilty at the Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames to entering into an arrangement contrary to section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

They had rented a safe-deposit box in their names for Ann Smale’s nephew, Daniel Reynolds, and placed cash supplied by him in it. Ann renewed the rental arrangements; Christopher’s involvement was confined to the opening day. Both accepted suspicion as to the money’s provenance, but denied knowledge, ownership, or financial gain.

They appealed, with leave, against sentences of 18 months’ and 15 months’ imprisonment respectively. The central issue was the proper custodial sentences for their differing levels of participation in the arrangement.

1. The appeals were allowed to the extent indicated. Ann Smale’s sentence was reduced from 18 months to 12 months’ imprisonment. Christopher Smale’s sentence was reduced from 15 months to four months’ imprisonment.

2. The court treated custody as merited for Ann Smale. She had opened and renewed the safe-deposit-box arrangement for Reynolds and had assisted with the storage of a very large sum of cash. However, her accepted basis of plea established suspicion rather than knowledge, no financial benefit, no prior convictions, and positive personal references. Those matters, together with her guilty plea, made 12 months the proper sentence.

3. Christopher Smale’s participation was substantially more limited. He was 22 at the time, attended only when the box was opened, immediately gave his access items to Reynolds, and derived no benefit. His state of mind was suspicion arising from the scale of the cash, rather than knowledge of its source. A four-month custodial sentence was therefore appropriate.

4. In reaching those conclusions, the court applied the relevant sentencing considerations identified in R v Monfries, [2004] 2 Cr App R(S) 3: the laundering role’s support for criminality, the offender’s knowledge of the antecedent offence, and the sum laundered.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeals to the extent indicated and substituted terms of 12 months’ imprisonment for Ann Smale and four months’ imprisonment for Christopher Smale: [2008] EWCA Crim 1235.

• Crown Court at Kingston upon Thames: On 7 January 2008 the appellants pleaded guilty to entering into an arrangement contrary to section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. On 28 February 2008, Ann Smale was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment and Christopher Smale to 15 months’ imprisonment.