Krushnakant, R v

Where a defendant participates in a serious and sophisticated fraud and separately launders its proceeds, the laundering may properly be treated as an additional operation warranting a consecutive sentence. The sentencing court must nevertheless apply the totality principle. A sentence within the applicable guideline range, which reflects the offender’s lesser role and limited credit for a late guilty plea, will not be interfered with merely because a lower or concurrent sentence was available.

The applicant pleaded guilty in the Crown Court at Lewes to conspiracy to defraud and conspiracy to launder criminal property. The offending involved false HMRC self-assessment claims, tax rebates diverted from unaware taxpayers, and the movement and retention of fraud proceeds through the applicant’s and his wife’s accounts.

He received 27 months’ imprisonment for the fraud conspiracy and 11 months’ imprisonment, consecutive, for laundering, making a total of three years and two months. He renewed an application for permission to appeal against sentence after refusal by a single judge. He contended that the sentence for fraud was excessive and that the laundering sentence should have been concurrent.

1. The renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence was refused. The court entirely agreed with the single judge’s refusal.

2. The fraud was serious, sophisticated, planned and prolonged. It defrauded the public purse of nearly £180,000. Although the applicant played a lesser role than one co-accused, he remained a co-conspirator. The sentence imposed for the fraud count was within the applicable sentencing guideline range.

3. The applicant’s guilty pleas came at the latest stage, on the day fixed for trial. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to allow only limited credit, assessed at 10 per cent.

4. The laundering conspiracy was an additional operation intended to conceal and deal with the proceeds of the principal fraud. It was therefore capable of attracting a consecutive sentence. The sentencing judge had considered the totality principle and moderated the laundering sentence accordingly. Totality did not require the sentences to be concurrent.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence refused in [2017] EWCA Crim 526.
• Crown Court at Lewes: the applicant pleaded guilty and was sentenced to a total of three years and two months’ imprisonment.
• Single judge: permission to appeal against sentence was refused.