Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - fraud.

[2013]JRC032

Royal Court

(Samedi)

8 February 2013

The Attorney General

-v-

Olalekan Babatunde George

Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charges:

Age:  45.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

On 20^th September, 2012, the defendant left Poole on the 5am ferry travelling as a foot passenger under the name Adedapo Adesesan.  On arrival in Jersey he was stopped by customs officers and told them that he had travelled to Jersey for a day trip and intended to return to England on the 11am ferry that day. 

When searched he was found to have four cheques and paying in slips in four different names, made out for a total of £41,200.  In his wallet the customs officer found bank cards in those names, five bank cards and one Prime card in his own name, and a further bank card in yet another name. 

The defendant said that he had been given these cheques by the individuals named on them to look after but denied that he had planned to pay into accounts in Jersey.  A piece of paper was also found with details of the defendant's journey and details of four high street banks and their addresses. 

The defendant later admitted that his sole reason for travelling to Jersey was to pay the cheques into Island Banks.  A friend, whom he identified as "Uncle Charlie" had asked him to take the cheques to Jersey.  He said that he did not know Charlie's surname but that he was a Ghanaian national and that they frequented the same café in Brixton.  

In interview the defendant said:- "Ok.  I'll tell you the truth, nothing but the truth and the whole truth".  He went on to say that another man named on the boarding pass had originally been intended to make the trip.  He was unemployed and in receipt of £170 benefit every two weeks.  He said that "Uncle Charlie" had offered him £500 to make the journey and he had "jump[ed] at the chance".  He claimed that he was struggling financially and was involved only for the money.  As to the booking, he said that it had been made the day before his travel by Uncle Charlie, who phoned the booking line from the café and asked to use the defendant's debit card to make the booking in another name, which he allowed. 

He said that he did not realise that Jersey was not part of the UK and had not expected Customs or immigration checks.  He described himself as an "errand boy" and claimed that he had never opened the envelopes containing the cards.  He was shown a cash machine mini statement which had been found in his belongings relating to one of the accounts and was unable to say how he came to have it.  An iPad and three mobile phones were seized from his belongings alone with other banking paperwork.  The papers showed several withdrawals and reversed cheques from the defendant's accounts for several thousand pounds. 

The legitimate holders of the four cheques were contacted.  In all cases cheques were found to be "cloned" and the signatures on the cheques were described as similar to those of the authorised signatories.

When asked about the paying in slips in relation to his own accounts he claimed that "Uncle Tayo" regularly gave him cheques to pay into his accounts.  He described Uncle Tayo as a businessman who imported goods into Nigeria, but who did not have an account of his own.  He said that once the cheques were paid into his account he would the go to the cash machine with Uncle Tayo, withdraw the money and hand it over.  Other cheques paid in were, he said, for a cousin and his sister.  He refused to give any contact details. 

When asked why he had initially lied to customs officers, he said he was shocked to see them and said the first thing that came into his head was "Obviously I'm not going to tell about the cheques."

The defendant was asked about his numerous bank accounts and a list of numbers written on a card in his possession.  While he initially denied they were PIN numbers, he then said they were and offered various explanations for having them.  One related to a friend's business account, another to an ex-wife's account, and another to a man he referred to as a brother but later said was actually his cousin.  He claimed not to know their surnames or contact details. 

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty plea; some cooperation.

Previous Convictions:

One count of obtaining property by false pretences in 1996, two motoring convictions. 

Conclusions:

16 months' imprisonment. 

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Conclusions granted.

R. C. P. Pedley, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate P. S. Landick for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE commissioner:

1.        The defendant stands to be sentenced for four counts of going equipped to commit fraud, an offence which carries a maximum sentence of 3 years.  The defendant had arrived in Jersey on the Condor travelling under a false name equipped with four cloned cheques, all of which were fraudulent and bank cards in the names of each of the four payees.  In interview the defendant maintained that his only involvement in the fraud was to travel to Jersey and pay in the cheques into four banking branches in the Island in exchange for a payment of £500 plus £100 expenses and the cost of the tickets.  However, he was found in possession of three mobile phones, an iPad, an mp3 player, six banking cards with the related paperwork (in addition to the four referred to above) together with the pin numbers.  He also had numerous bank accounts which had recently had several thousands of pounds passed through them. 

2.        The account given by the defendant to the police was, say the Crown, riven with inconsistencies, uncertainties and lies and is unworthy of belief.  His possession of these items, the Crown says, indicates a deeper involvement in the larger organisation than a one-off trip in which he was, he says effectively, a mule.  We agree with the Crown. 

3.        He has one previous conviction for dishonesty a long time ago in 1996 for which he was fined £50 and is assessed at a low risk of reoffending. 

4.        In terms of mitigation, he has pleaded guilty from the outset and can fairly be regarded to be a man of good character.  We have read his letter which has been passed up to us today and the other documents handed up by Mr Landick and, of course, we have considered the reports. 

5.        However, having taken into account all of the mitigation, the fact is that these are serious offences.  Those outside the Island who may seek to come here in order to commit frauds through our banking system or to facilitate the same must know that they will face serious consequences.  We therefore agree with the conclusions of the Crown. 

6.        On each of the counts you are sentenced to 16 months' imprisonment, concurrent, which makes a total of 16 months. 

7.        Turning to the issue of deportation, the defendant is a Nigerian national and is therefore liable to be deported.  Applying the test in Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462 we agree with the Crown that his continued presence is detrimental to the Island.  He visited the Island solely for the purpose of furthering these potential frauds.  The defendant has no connection with Jersey and therefore, the Crown say, no Article 8 considerations arise in so far as this jurisdiction is concerned.  He is a member of a family of a British national, namely his wife who lives in England, and as such his deportation from Jersey does not mean his deportation from England, as he falls under one of the exceptions in paragraph of 3(2) of schedule 4 of the Immigration Act 1971. 

8.        Mr Landick informs us that if deportation is recommended then under new arrangements for the transfer of prisoners he may not be able to transfer to the UK to serve his sentence there and where he can see his family more easily, and possibly benefit from the more generous remission provisions which apply in England whereby prisoners serve, as we understand it, one half of their sentence.  Even so, Mr Landick informs us that there are arrangements where he can go to England for short periods for what are known as cumulated visits where his family can see him. 

9.        We have taken this into account, but in our view the interests of the community must take precedence over those of the defendant in this respect and we therefore recommend deportation. 

Authorities

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462.

Immigration Act 1971.

Crime (Going Equipped)(Jersey) Law 2003.

AG-v-Bellot [2004] JRC 160.