CRIMINAL DIVISION
Strand London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
MR JUSTICE GOLDRING
MR JUSTICE AKENHEAD
____________________
R E G I N A | ||
v | ||
DARREN LEE | ||
MARTIN WILLIAMS |
____________________
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
190 Fleet Street London EC4A 2AG
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7831 8838
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr C Stables appeared on behalf of Williams
Miss A Mulligan appeared on behalf of the Crown
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"It seems to me that you two were not the original architects of this plan on the evidence. It seems to me likely that you were approached by others who had the plan in mind, and approached for the reasons I set out earlier. You agreed, both of you, to take part in this fraud and you, Mr Lee and Mr Williams, played a vital role, a key role in the conspiracy, not just as movers of money but really central to the success of the fraud itself. You were absolutely vital to the success or potential success of the plan.
You knew the Charlotte Browne cheques that were paid in were worthless, both of you. You knew the exact values of those cheques because you had agreed to produce false paperwork to disguise the credits as mobile phone trading. Mr Lee, it seems from your background you were more the phones man, and Mr Williams more of the computer expert who was trained to use the Bankline Payment Manager facility. But both of you were responsible for every action that was taken by or on behalf of Britanniacity."
He went on to say in relation to the £210,000 they had taken out in cash that in the context of the attempted fraud of £20 million that might seem small, but it meant that they had earned not far short of a quarter of a million pounds for not a great deal of effort and work, and although there was some risk involved he was sure they were both confident it could easily be managed.
"... there is in your case an element of breach of trust ... because you were trusted business clients of the bank. You knew the business managers personally and you were exploiting that trust in order to make this work."
He indicated that he had been minded to sentence the appellants to six years' imprisonment each, but having heard mitigation from counsel was making an additional discount, concluding that the appropriate sentence was one of five years nine months in each case.