R v Peter Masih & Anor

In sentencing for money laundering committed as part of a large-scale drug conspiracy, the court must assess both the offender’s individual role and the harm associated with the underlying offending. The money-laundering guideline permits an upward adjustment, including outside its range in an appropriate case, by reference to that harm and the relevant sentencing level for the underlying offence. The court must not simply transplant the sentence recommended for the drug offence or automatically select the heavier guideline. A substantial uplift may be justified by the scale of the conspiracy. Limited duration or transactions remain relevant to individual culpability. On the facts, uplifts of four years and three and a half years were not manifestly excessive.

The appellants pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to conspiracy to conceal, convert, disguise or transfer criminal property, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The offending formed part of a large-scale cocaine-supply conspiracy involving substantial quantities of drugs and millions of pounds in criminal proceeds.

On 20 August 2024, HHJ Maylin at the Crown Court at Birmingham sentenced Masih to eight years’ imprisonment and Singh to seven years and two months. They appealed against sentence, arguing principally that the judge had applied excessive uplifts from the money-laundering guideline and had thereby exceeded the appropriate sentencing range. The central issue was whether the underlying commercial drug conspiracy justified those uplifts.

Both appeals against sentence were dismissed.

1. Individual culpability and the wider conspiracy. The Court rejected Singh’s argument that the case fell within category 3B rather than category 3A, and rejected the claimed disparity between the sentences. In conspiracy cases, overall harm must be assessed alongside the offender’s individual role. A limited period of involvement or limited transactions may justify a lower category, but participation in the wider criminal activity and awareness of its scale are aggravating features. The approach in R v Khan [2014] 1 Cr App R(S) 10 and Shaun Smith & Ors [2020] EWCA Crim 994 supported that assessment.
2. Underlying offending and Harm B. The money-laundering guideline requires the court to consider the harm associated with the underlying offence. Where that offence can be identified, regard should be had to its relevant sentencing levels. The present conspiracy involved approximately £10 million and very substantial quantities of cocaine. The sentencing judge was therefore entitled to make a significant upward adjustment to the money-laundering starting points, including an adjustment beyond the guideline range in an appropriate case.
3. Comparison of guidelines. The court should not simply transplant the sentence recommended by the drugs guideline into a money-laundering case, nor automatically prefer the heavier guideline. As explained in R v Ogden [2017] 1 WLR 1224, R v Campbell [2017] EWCA Crim 213 and R v Thompson [2017] EWCA Crim 734, a sentence between the competing starting points, including the midpoint where appropriate, may provide the proper basis for sentence.
4. Application. The judge’s uplifts of four years for Masih and three and a half years for Singh were amply justified by the underlying large-scale commercial conspiracy. The reductions for guilty pleas and personal mitigation were generous. The resulting sentences were not manifestly excessive. The Court noted the report requirement under section 33 of the Sentencing Act 2020 and directed that reports were unnecessary.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) dismissed both appeals against sentence on 10 September 2025: R v Peter Masih & Anor [2025] EWCA Crim 1236.
2. Crown Court at Birmingham sentenced Masih to eight years’ imprisonment and Singh to seven years and two months on 20 August 2024, following guilty pleas to conspiracy to conceal, convert, disguise or transfer criminal property.