R v Vijay Deuchande

In sentencing for money laundering, the amount laundered must be assessed accurately. A sentence imposed on the basis of a materially overstated sum is wrong in principle.

Under the offence-specific guideline, the value of the money determines the initial Harm A category. Harm B permits an upward adjustment for the harm caused by the identifiable underlying offence only where that harm warrants it. Where the underlying harm is similar to the amount laundered, it does not itself justify increasing the starting point.

The appellant pleaded guilty at Oxford Crown Court to four offences of acquiring criminal property contrary to section 329(1)(a), and one money-laundering-arrangement offence contrary to section 328(1), of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. On 29 August 2023, he received concurrent sentences of three years and six months’ imprisonment.

The sentencing judge proceeded on the mistaken basis that almost £2 million had been laundered. Confiscation proceedings later showed that the true sum was just over £530,000. The appellant sought an extension of time, permission to appeal, and a reduction of sentence. The Crown did not oppose the applications.

1. The court granted an extension of time and permission to appeal, then allowed the appeal against sentence.

2. The appellant’s offending fell within medium culpability and Harm A category 3 of the money-laundering guideline. That category covered laundering between £500,000 and £2 million and had a starting point of five years’ custody. The actual sum, just over £530,000, was near the bottom of that range.

3. The judge had increased the five-year starting point to six years. That increase could not have rested solely on the amount laundered. It necessarily reflected, to an appreciable extent, the harm from the underlying fraud. The underlying harm was similar to the amount laundered and did not warrant an upward adjustment under Harm B.

4. It was wrong in principle to sentence the appellant on the basis that he had laundered nearly four times the amount actually laundered. The court quashed the concurrent sentences of three years and six months.

5. Applying the judge’s approach except as to harm, the court reduced the five-year starting point by one year because the sum was near the bottom of category 3. It then reduced four years by one quarter for mitigation and by a further one fifth for the guilty pleas. It substituted concurrent sentences of two years and four months’ imprisonment on each count.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division): Allowed the appeal against sentence and substituted concurrent sentences of two years and four months’ imprisonment: [2025] EWCA Crim 157.

• Crown Court at Oxford: On 29 August 2023, imposed concurrent sentences of three years and six months’ imprisonment following guilty pleas to five money laundering offences.