Jersey Unreported Judgments

[2005]JRC031

ROYAL COURT

(Samedi Division)

 

18^th March 2005

 

 

The Attorney General

-v-

Maureen Ann Fagan

 

 

1 count of:	Assisting another to retain the benefit of criminal conduct, contrary to Article 32 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).
1 count of:	Acquisition, possession, or use of proceeds of criminal conduct contrary to Article 33 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 2).

 

 

Age:     47

 

Plea:    Conviction by Inferior Number, en police correctionnelle, on 25^th February, 2005, on Not Guilty pleas to both counts.

 

Details of Offence:

Fagan was the girlfriend of a man called Trevor Billingsley.  He pleaded guilty to 16 counts of larceny.  He received a sentence of 2 years' imprisonment.  When sentencing 208 counts of theft were taken into consideration.  Billingsley had been stealing property from his employer and selling it to an auctioneer.  This auctioneer paid for the items by cheque.  On twelve occasions between 13 June 2002 and 23 April, 2003 cheques were issued by the auctioneer in the name of M Fagin or M Fagan.  Fagan paid these cheques into her account.  The total of the cheques was £11,800.  Fagan telephoned Billingsley's employer on or about 3 November 2002.  She left a number of telephone messages, which in essence accepted that Billingsley was a thief, and she had paid the cheques into her bank account, and that she was probably liable.

 

Details of Mitigation:

Fagan cited her familial circumstances.  Her employment record.  The fact that she had been led astray by Billingsley whom she had loved dearly.  There were a significant number of personal references provided that attested to her honesty and trustworthiness.  The Social Enquiry Report recommended a community disposal.

 

Previous Convictions:

Grave and criminal assault - 15^th June 2001.

Sentenced to 240 hours Community Service.

 

 

Conclusions:

 

 

Count 1:	12 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

 

 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

 

 

Count 1:	18 months' Community Service Order, or 12 months' imprisonment, in default of performance.
Count 2:	18 months' Community Service Order, or 12 months' imprisonment, in default of performance, concurrent.

 

The Royal Court identified the following principles for sentencing money launderers:

(i)         Where the antecedent offence can be identified some regard ought to be had to the appropriate sentence for the antecedent offence when determining the sentence to be imposed for the money laundering offence.

(ii)         Regard should be had to the extent of the launderer's knowledge of the antecedent offences.

(iii)        Regard should be had to the amount of money laundered.

(iv)        Regard should be had to the period of time during which the money laundering occurs.

(v)         The criminality in money laundering is the assistance, support and encouragement it provides to criminal conduct. 

 

 

S.M. Baker, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate D Hopwood for the Defendant.

 

 

 

JUDGMENT

 

 

 

THE BAILIFF:

1.        This defendant has been convicted by the Jurats of two offences of the laundering of the proceeds of crime.  It is, so far as we are aware, the first conviction under the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999, for the laundering of money other than in a drug trafficking context. 

2.        She was the partner of a man called Billingsley, and received money from him knowing that it was the proceeds of his criminal conduct.  She received a total of £11,800 out of about £150,000 worth of goods stolen by Billingsley from his employer. 

3.        She made telephone calls to Billingsley's employer whilst under the influence of alcohol during which she accepted that Billingsley was a thief and that she was probably liable for the fact that cheques from him had been paid into her account.

4.        Billingsley pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment.  The Crown Advocate has suggested that there is no tariff for money laundering offences and that the gravity depends upon the circumstances of the case.  We agree, and having considered the further submissions of the Crown Advocate, we think that the appropriate principles to be applied by a sentencing court in the cases of money laundering are as follows:

5.        Where the antecedent offence can be identified some regard ought to be had to the appropriate sentence for the antecedent offence when determining the sentence to be imposed for the money laundering offence.

6.        Regard should be had to the extent of the launderer's knowledge of the antecedent offences.

7.        Regard should be had to the amount of money laundered.

8.        Regard should be had to the period of time during which the money laundering occurs.

9.        The criminality in money laundering is the assistance, support and encouragement it provides to criminal conduct. 

10.      It is, therefore, akin to the relationship between the handler and the thief.  Money laundering will accordingly often attract a custodial sentence.  We note that the maximum penality for money laundering under the 1999 Law is one of 14 years' imprisonment.

11.      We accept that the defendant in this case may not have known from the outset that the money she was receiving was derived from criminal conduct.  She was convicted on the basis that at some stage during the period when she received the cheques and certainly before the telephone calls to Billingsley's employer, she acquired that guilty knowledge.  Having regard to that fact and all the other circumstances of this case, these offences are towards the bottom end of the scale in terms of criminality. 

12.      There is personal mitigation available to the defendant although there is regrettably no evidence of remorse.  She pleaded not guilty to the offence as she was entitled to do, but she cannot as a result claim any credit for remorse.    She is, however, a person to be treated essentially as a person of good character.  Sadly, she became besotted with a deceitful and dishonest individual, who betrayed her on many occasions and who brought her much anguish, and also brought her twice into conflict with the law.  She is an example of the old adage 'that love is blind'.

13.      Counsel for the defendant in his powerful submissions in mitigation has drawn our attention to a number of excellent references from friends, and employers, testifying to her industry and general trustworthiness and honesty.  She is a good mother with two sons aged 13 and 9 who, of course, rely upon her. 

14.      We understand why the Crown Advocate should have moved for a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment, which in other circumstances would have been the appropriate penalty for these offences.  The mitigating circumstances of this particular defendant enable us, however, to substitute a non-custodial alternative.

15.      The sentence of the Court is that you will perform 180 hours of community service for which the alternative is 12 months' imprisonment.

Authorities

Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999:  Article 32 and 33.

R -v- O'Meally & Morgan [1994] 15 Cr. App. R (S) 831.

R -v- Greenwood [1995] 16 Cr. App. R (S) 614.

R -v- Hanna [1994] 15 Cr. App. R (S) 44.

R -v- Monfries [2004] 2 Cr. App. R. (S) 3.

A.G. -v- Culkin (7^th December, 2001) Jersey Unreported; [2001/242].

Harrison -v- A.G. [2004]JCA046.

A.G. -v- Billingsley [2004] JRC091.