Solanki & Anor, R v

For a money-laundering arrangement under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, criminal property may be proved either by evidence of identified unlawful conduct or by circumstances permitting the irresistible inference that it could only derive from crime. The jury need not identify the particular crime or particular money.

A Brown direction is required only where pleaded alternative matters may separately establish an ingredient of the offence. The jury must agree on the essential elements, but need not agree on every evidential detail. A sentencing court may admit further evidence after conviction where this is necessary for a fair and accurate sentencing basis, the defence can answer it, and the earlier exclusion is not unfairly contradicted.

Solanki, the sole director of a money-service business, and Patel, an employee, were convicted at the Crown Court at Harrow of entering into or becoming concerned in a money-laundering arrangement. The prosecution alleged that the business received and transferred criminal money through false transfer records, false identities and associated bank accounts. It relied on circumstantial evidence and did not identify the underlying crimes or any particular sum as criminal property.

Both defendants challenged their convictions. They contended that the Recorder's response to a jury question about tax was a misdirection and that the jury required a Brown direction. They also sought to challenge their sentences, principally the basis on which the laundering quantum and their respective roles had been assessed.

The central issues were whether the jury directions were legally adequate and whether the Recorder could use further spreadsheet evidence when fixing the sentencing quantum.

1. Conviction appeals dismissed. The prosecution could prove that money was criminal property through the second route identified in R v Anwoir and Others [2008] EWCA Crim 1354: circumstances which gave rise to the irresistible inference that the money could only derive from crime. The Crown was not required to prove a particular underlying crime or identify particular criminal money.

2. The Recorder's response to the jury's question about tax did not make the convictions unsafe. Unlike R v Anwar [2013] EWCA Crim 1865, there had been no evidence capable of making tax evasion a live factual basis for the alleged criminal property. The jury were properly returned to the question whether they were sure, by irresistible inference, that some money was the benefit of another person's crime.

3. No Brown direction was required. Under R v Brown (1984) 79 Cr App R 115, unanimity is required on each essential ingredient and, where separately pleaded alternatives can establish an ingredient, on at least one such alternative. This indictment did not specify alternative sums or transactions as criminal property. The jury therefore needed to agree only on the essential elements, rather than on the individual evidential items supporting them.

4. The Recorder was entitled to admit additional spreadsheet evidence for sentencing under Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, section 78. Solanki had introduced part of the material at trial. The Recorder gave both defendants an opportunity to challenge the further evidence and capped Solanki's quantum at £3 million. That approach produced a fair sentencing basis without contradicting the earlier ruling excluding the material from the trial.

5. The sentences were not arguably wrong in principle or manifestly excessive. The Recorder was entitled to find a sophisticated, cross-border operation, a leading role for Solanki, and a leading but subordinate role for Patel. Patel's family circumstances and the Article 8 interests of his family were considered and justified a downward adjustment, but did not make six years' imprisonment excessive. Patel was granted leave to appeal against conviction out of time, but leave to appeal against sentence was refused for both defendants.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — in [2020] EWCA Crim 47, granted Patel leave to appeal against conviction out of time, dismissed both conviction appeals, and refused both applications for leave to appeal against sentence.

• Crown Court at Harrow — Solanki was convicted unanimously on 26 September 2018 and Patel was convicted by a 10:2 majority on 27 September 2018 of an offence contrary to section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. On 7 December 2018, Solanki received eight years' imprisonment and Patel six years' imprisonment.