Gillies, R. v

For an offence under section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the prosecution need not prove the particular type of criminal conduct that generated the property. It may instead prove that the circumstances in which the property was handled permit the jury to draw the only proper inference that it derived from crime.

The property must nevertheless already represent the proceeds of earlier criminal conduct. A direction is sufficient if it makes clear that the jury must be sure of that fact and that the defendant knew or suspected it. The judge need not restate the same issue by a separate warning framed in reverse terms.

The appellant was convicted at Snaresbrook Crown Court of entering into, or becoming concerned in, a money-laundering arrangement contrary to section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.

Police observed him transfer a large bag containing €200,050 in cash to another man in a car park. The cash had no identified legitimate source. The appellant was unemployed, had no savings or material assets, and his marks were found on the bags and wrapping.

On appeal, he contended that there was no case to answer because the prosecution had not proved the type of crime which generated the cash. He also contended that the jury should have been expressly warned not to convict if the cash might initially have been acquired innocently and was intended only for later criminal use.

1. Appeal dismissed. There was a proper case for the jury. The circumstances surrounding the transfer of a very large sum of cash, together with the absence of any legitimate source and the appellant’s financial position, were capable of supporting the inference that the cash was derived from earlier criminal conduct.

2. The court followed R v Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354. The prosecution may establish that property derives from crime either by proving criminal conduct of a specified unlawful kind, or from handling circumstances which permit the only proper inference that the property can have derived only from crime. It does not have to prove the specific kind of crime.

3. Section 328(1) requires the property to be criminal property before the arrangement in issue. It is insufficient that the property is merely in the defendant’s hands for the purpose of committing a future offence. That distinction, reflected in R v Geary [2010] EWCA Crim 1925, was correctly put to the jury.

4. The trial judge’s directions accurately required the jury to be sure that the cash was the proceeds of earlier crime, committed by someone, and that the appellant knew or suspected that fact. The judge was not required to repeat the point by separately directing the jury to acquit if they thought the cash might have been innocently acquired before it reached the appellant.

5. The court declined to reconcile authorities concerning civil-recovery provisions of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Those provisions were irrelevant to the settled meaning and effect of the criminal offence under section 328(1).

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division). The appellant’s appeal against conviction was dismissed: [2011] EWCA Crim 2140.
• Snaresbrook Crown Court. On 4 April 2011, the appellant was convicted of an offence contrary to section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment.