Davis, R. v

Under section 329(2)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, adequate consideration is a separate matter from the accused’s knowledge or suspicion that property is criminal property. The prosecution must prove that the property was not acquired for adequate consideration. The appropriate jury direction depends on the issues raised by the evidence. Where the sole issue is whether a claimed gambling debt existed, it is sufficient to direct clearly that the prosecution must disprove acquisition in satisfaction of that debt. No formulaic direction is required.

The appellant pleaded guilty to obtaining a money transfer by deception and was convicted of acquiring criminal property, contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The conviction concerned £82,000 transferred to his account from funds obtained through a forged cheque.

He said that the payment settled gambling debts. The prosecution alleged that this was a false explanation for the receipt of criminal proceeds. He appealed his conviction for acquiring criminal property on the ground that the Recorder had inadequately directed the jury on the adequate-consideration exception in section 329(2)(c).

1. Appeal dismissed. The conviction was safe because the Recorder’s directions correctly and adequately put the live issues to the jury.
2. Section 329(2)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 creates a distinct issue from knowledge or suspicion that property represents criminal proceeds. The prosecution had to prove both the requisite knowledge or suspicion and that the £82,000 had not been acquired for adequate consideration.
3. The court rejected the submission that the jury had to be expressly told, in formulaic terms, that adequate consideration prevents liability even if the accused knew or suspected the property was criminal. The necessary form of direction depends upon the circumstances of the case.
4. Here there was no issue about whether the amount paid was adequate for any goods or services. The only issue was whether a gambling debt existed. The Recorder correctly told the jury that the prosecution had to prove that the payment was not in satisfaction of such a debt, and accurately summarised the defence case.
5. The observation in Hogan v Director of Public Prosecutions, [2007] 1 WLR 2944, concerned the consequence of adequate consideration but was made in a case about the objective nature of the issue and the burden of proof. It did not prescribe the wording of a jury direction.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): dismissed the appellant’s appeal against conviction for acquiring criminal property.
• Crown Court at Chelmsford: the appellant was convicted by an 11–1 majority on 4 April 2008 and sentenced on 25 July 2008.