R v Mohshin Ali Kamran

For an arrangement to fall within section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the property must acquire its criminal quality through criminal conduct distinct from the arrangement itself. It need not exist when the arrangement is made, but it must be criminal property when the arrangement operates on it.

Money transferred by a fraud victim as a result of the fraud may become criminal property on receipt by the intermediary. A subsequent arrangement converting that money into gold and enabling its collection can facilitate the acquisition of criminal property. A trial judge may prevent counsel from inviting a jury to reject a correct ruling of law, while leaving factual issues such as knowledge or suspicion for the jury.

Mohshin Ali Kamran, a director of a jewellery and gold-bullion company, was convicted at the Crown Court at Inner London of three fraud offences and one count under section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. He received concurrent sentences, the longest being four years’ imprisonment for the money-laundering count.

The count concerned an elderly fraud victim who, after being deceived into buying bullion, transferred approximately £1.343 million to the company. The appellant bought and delivered the gold, which the fraudsters later collected. He appealed his conviction on the section 328 count, contending that the money was not criminal property until the gold was taken and that defence counsel should have been permitted to argue that proposition before the jury.

1. Appeal dismissed. The judge correctly rejected the submission of no case to answer on the money-laundering count.

2. Section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 requires property to have become criminal property through criminal conduct independent of the alleged laundering arrangement. The property need not exist when the arrangement is formed, but it must be criminal when the arrangement operates upon it. The court applied R v GH [2015] UKSC 204.

3. The money transferred into the company’s account was induced by the fraud perpetrated on the victim. Upon receipt, it represented the fraudsters’ indirect benefit from criminal conduct and was therefore criminal property within sections 340(3) and (4). The later purchase and delivery of gold was an arrangement acting upon that criminal property and facilitating its acquisition by the fraudsters.

4. Geary [2011] 1 Cr App R(S) 8 was distinguishable. In that case the money remained lawfully owned by the person who transferred it and had no criminal quality apart from the arrangement. Here, the victim’s transfer resulted from an independent fraud.

5. The ruling on criminal property was a ruling of law. The judge was entitled to prevent a closing speech that undermined it. He did not remove the appellant’s factual defence: the jury still had to decide whether the appellant knew or suspected that he was facilitating the fraudsters’ acquisition of criminal property.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — dismissed the appeal against conviction on the section 328(1) money-laundering count: R v Mohshin Ali Kamran [2025] EWCA Crim 247.

• Crown Court at Inner London — on 20 March 2024, the appellant was convicted of three fraud counts and one money-laundering count. On 1 May 2024, he received concurrent sentences, including four years’ imprisonment for the money-laundering count.