R v William Osmond

Under section 333A(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the relevant question is the capacity in which the defendant received information, not whether it came from the investigating authority. A specific investigation may be disclosed even though it forms part of a wider investigation already known to the recipient. Likelihood of prejudice is assessed when the disclosure is made; actual prejudice need not be proved. A solicitor who receives the information while acting on a property transaction is within the regulated sector. For forgery under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, deceiving a public official conducting a criminal investigation is connected with performance of a duty owed to the employer and the public. The employer’s power, rather than duty, to investigate does not alter that conclusion.

William Osmond, a solicitor, was convicted at the Central Criminal Court of tipping off and forgery after telling a long-standing client that the Serious Fraud Office was investigating the financing of a property purchase and supplying a backdated letter of engagement. He was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.

His application for leave to appeal against conviction was referred to the full court. He challenged pre-trial rulings identifying the investigation disclosed, treating the information as received in the regulated sector, and holding that an SFO investigator was acting in performance of a duty. He also relied on civil findings of earlier SFO misconduct and argued that they affected prejudice, disclosure and the fairness or propriety of the prosecution. The central issues were whether those rulings were matters of law and whether the convictions were unsafe.

The court refused leave to appeal against conviction.

1. Pre-trial rulings. The overriding objective in the Criminal Procedure Rules, para 1.1 supported rulings on legal issues which promoted efficient and expeditious case management and enabled the jury to focus on the real issues. The prosecution was entitled to identify the alleged disclosure as the fact that the SFO was investigating money laundering connected with the 10 Hays Mews transaction. The wider ENRC investigation was background. A specific investigation could be the subject of disclosure even though it formed part of a wider investigation already known to the recipient.
2. Tipping off. The information on which the disclosure was based was the fact of the SFO investigation. It came to the appellant in his capacity as a solicitor acting on a transaction involving real property, an off-the-shelf company and client money. The source of the information, namely the SFO, did not matter; the relevant question was the capacity in which it was received. The age of the underlying transaction was also immaterial. The statutory question was whether prejudice was likely when the disclosure was made. Actual prejudice did not have to be proved, and absence of actual prejudice was no defence. The jury was entitled to conclude that disclosure to the target created a risk of evidence being destroyed or compromised or an offender evading justice.
3. Forgery. The issue under the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981 was hypothetical. It was whether the appellant intended to induce acceptance of the false instrument and thereby an act or omission to the recipient’s prejudice, not whether the instrument was in fact accepted or prejudice actually resulted. Whether the recipient was under a relevant duty was a question of law. Deceiving a public official conducting a criminal investigation in the course of employment was connected with performance of a duty owed to the employer and the public. It made no difference that the SFO had a power, rather than a duty, to investigate once that power had been exercised.
4. ENRC material and abuse of process. The court distinguished the civil findings in Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Dechert LLP; Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2022] EWHC 1138 (Comm) and Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v Dechert LLP; Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd v The Director of the Serious Fraud Office [2023] EWHC 3280 (Comm). Those judgments concerned earlier misconduct by different officials and causation in tort. They did not establish that the whole investigation was unlawful or bear on the appellant’s guilt. No abuse-of-process submission was advanced, although the court observed that such a submission would have faced the demanding test summarised in R v Ng & O’Reilly [2024] EWCA Crim 493 and referred to in R v BKR [2023] EWCA Crim 903. Once the relevant disclosure was identified as the specific Hays Mews investigation, the prosecution’s disclosure obligations were properly focused on that transaction.
5. Disposition. The proposed appeal was not arguable. Leave to appeal was refused. The judgment was released for citation because it was the first case concerning section 333A(3) to reach the court.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) ([2026] EWCA Crim 979 ) — The application for leave to appeal against conviction was referred to the full court. Leave was refused.
2. Central Criminal Court — The appellant was convicted of tipping off and forgery on 14 November 2023 and sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.