Doshi, R v

A custodial sentence for prejudicing an investigation by disclosing a production order must mark the need to protect the confidentiality and effectiveness of production orders. The sentence must nevertheless be no longer than is necessary to achieve just punishment.

A director-disqualification period imposed for failure to comply with registration requirements must also be proportionate to the offender’s wrongdoing and personal circumstances.

R v Kishor Doshi appealed, with leave, against sentence from the Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne. He had pleaded guilty to failing to register his accountancy-services company with the relevant supervisory body. He was also convicted after trial of prejudicing an investigation contrary to section 342(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Having received a production order for records concerning a client under investigation, he informed that client and the client’s legal adviser. The Recorder imposed 18 months’ imprisonment for the section 342(2) offence and disqualified him from acting as a company director for six years. The issue was whether those sentences were manifestly excessive.

1. The appeal was allowed in part. A prison sentence was required because recipients of production orders must comply faithfully with them and must not disclose the investigation to potential money launderers. Confidentiality is necessary to protect the public from serious crime and to preserve the effectiveness of the investigative process.

2. The Court accepted, however, that 18 months’ imprisonment was longer than necessary in this case. A term of 12 months’ imprisonment sufficiently marked the seriousness of prejudicing the investigation and provided due punishment.

3. The six-year director-disqualification period was also manifestly excessive. Although the appellant had failed to meet registration requirements for his accountancy-services company, his wrongdoing, age and circumstances did not justify a disqualification of that length. A period of four years met the justice of the case.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the sentence appeal in part and substituted 12 months’ imprisonment and four years’ director disqualification.
• Crown Court at Newcastle upon Tyne: The appellant pleaded guilty to the registration offence, was convicted after trial of prejudicing an investigation, and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment with six years’ director disqualification.