Dao, R v

Sentences for money laundering are highly fact-sensitive and no general guideline could be given. Sentencing comparisons from other cases may nevertheless assist as examples. For money laundering of about £200,000 over several years, where there is a timely guilty plea, the appropriate bracket indicated by comparable cases was two to three years’ imprisonment. A sentence materially above that bracket may be manifestly excessive and justify appellate intervention.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Southwark Crown Court to entering or becoming concerned in a money-laundering arrangement contrary to section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. He received three and a half years’ imprisonment.

More than £200,000 had passed through his bank accounts between 2003 and 2006 and was withdrawn immediately or shortly afterwards. The funds were connected with unlawful cannabis cultivation. The appellant had no previous convictions and had entered an early guilty plea.

He appealed against sentence, contending that insufficient allowance had been made for mitigation, that there was unfair disparity with his uncle’s sentence, and that the sentence exceeded the range shown by comparable money-laundering cases.

1. The appeal was allowed to the extent of sentence. The court quashed the sentence of three and a half years’ imprisonment and substituted two and a half years.
2. The offence involved money laundering on a substantial scale. About £200,000 passed through the appellant’s accounts over a number of years, and the funds derived from unlawful cannabis cultivation. The court accepted that he may have been used by others, but held that he was far removed from those undertaking the direct cultivation.
3. The mitigation advanced did not justify retaining the original sentence. The appellant’s good character, timely guilty plea and limited demand on prison resources had been relied upon. The court did not find those points persuasive enough to prevent intervention.
4. There was no unfair disparity with the three-year sentence imposed on the appellant’s uncle. That sentence concerned a different indictment and materially different facts.
5. There was no guideline authority for money laundering, whose circumstances vary widely. The cases cited by counsel were therefore examples rather than authorities establishing general guidance. They nevertheless indicated that, after a timely plea, money laundering of this scale attracted a bracket of about two to three years. The original sentence exceeded the top of that bracket sufficiently to be manifestly excessive.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In R v Dao [2008] EWCA Crim 984, the court allowed the appeal to the extent of quashing a three-and-a-half-year sentence and substituting two and a half years.
• Crown Court at Southwark: On 6 September 2007, the appellant pleaded guilty to a money-laundering arrangement. On 29 October 2007, he was sentenced to three and a half years’ imprisonment.