Robey, R v

Where money-laundering offences are part and parcel of the underlying fraud and add nothing to the offender’s overall culpability, consecutive sentences may make the total sentence manifestly excessive. The sentencing court must assess totality by reference to the criminality of the offending as a whole, rather than impose an additional consecutive term merely because the laundering conduct forms separate counts.

The appellant, a senior electrical engineer employed by the London Borough of Southwark, failed to disclose his interest in a company which performed subcontract work connected with a contract he administered. He was convicted at the Inner London Crown Court of fraud and two money-laundering offences.

He received three years’ imprisonment for fraud, with a consecutive 12-month sentence for one money-laundering count and a concurrent sentence for the other, making four years. He appealed only the consecutive element of the money-laundering sentences, contending that the total sentence was excessive.

The appeal was allowed to a limited extent. The total sentence of four years was manifestly excessive.

1. The appellate question was whether the overall sentence, rather than the individual component sentences, was manifestly excessive. There was no challenge to the three-year sentence for the fraud offence or to the lengths of the sentences imposed for the money-laundering offences.
2. The sentencing judge had carefully assessed the fraud as falling within the appropriate sentencing category. He had already taken account of the seriousness of the appellant’s abuse of trust, the duration and sophistication of the conduct, and the fact that the company had received the relevant payments.
3. The money-laundering offences arose from the receipt of the proceeds into the company account and the subsequent withdrawals. On the facts, they were part and parcel of the fraud and did not add to the appellant’s overall culpability. A consecutive term for one of those offences therefore produced an excessive aggregate sentence.
4. The court quashed the order that the 12-month sentence on count 6 should run consecutively and substituted an order that it should run concurrently. All other sentences and orders remained in force.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): In [2018] EWCA Crim 906, allowed the sentencing appeal to the limited extent of making the 12-month sentence on count 6 concurrent.
• Inner London Crown Court: On 3 May 2017, convicted the appellant of fraud and two money-laundering offences and imposed a total sentence of four years’ imprisonment.