Iqbal, R v

In sentencing a money launderer, the court may have regard to the seriousness of the antecedent offending and to the offender’s knowledge of it. There is no direct correlation between the sentence for laundering and that for the antecedent offence.

A prolonged and knowing role at the centre of a large-scale operation laundering the proceeds of class A drug trafficking may properly attract a strongly deterrent sentence. Sentence comparisons must reflect material differences in the offender’s role, knowledge, duration of conduct, pleas and assistance. A sentence at the top of the relevant range is not manifestly excessive merely because another case involved a larger sum.

The applicant was convicted in the Crown Court at Sheffield after four trials of 21 counts of conspiracy to transfer the proceeds of drug trafficking or criminal property. He operated money-transfer services from his newsagents and knowingly facilitated 1,523 transfers to Jamaica, totalling just over £1 million, over at least three years.

On 20 September 2007, His Honour Judge Robertshaw sentenced him to 11 years’ imprisonment concurrently on each count and made a substantial confiscation order. The applicant renewed, out of time, an application for leave to appeal against sentence after refusal by the single judge. He contended that the total was manifestly excessive, principally by comparison with co-defendants and earlier sentencing authority.

1. The court granted an extension of time but refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against the total sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment. The sentence was not manifestly excessive.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled to regard deterrence as the principal sentencing purpose. The applicant knowingly laundered the proceeds of large-scale class A drug trafficking over a substantial period. He was the linchpin of the operation and his role was crucial and pivotal.

3. The judge was particularly well placed, having presided over all four trials, to assess the comparative culpability of the defendants. He had carefully differentiated their roles, pleas, criminal records and, where relevant, assistance to the prosecution. The differing sentences imposed on co-defendants therefore disclosed no error.

4. El-Kurd [2001] Crim.L.R 234 did not assist the applicant. Although it concerned a much larger sum, the transfers occurred over a shorter period and the offender had not been proved to have laundered drug proceeds.

5. Applying Monfries [2004] 2 Cr.App.R (S) 3, the court held that sentencing for money laundering may take account of the appropriate sentence for the antecedent offence, without any direct correlation. The offender’s knowledge of that offence is relevant. Here, the antecedent offence was large-scale class A drug trafficking and the applicant knew it.

6. The total was towards the top of the relevant sentencing bracket, but was justified by the scale, duration, knowledge and centrality of the applicant’s conduct.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Granted an extension of time and refused the renewed application for leave to appeal against sentence.

• Single judge of the Court of Appeal: Refused leave to appeal against sentence.

• Crown Court at Sheffield: Following four trials, convicted the applicant of 21 conspiracy counts and, on 20 September 2007, sentenced him to 11 years’ imprisonment concurrently on each count. A substantial confiscation order was also made.