Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - fraud - obtaining goods by false pretences - attempting to obtain goods by false pretences- removing criminal property from Jersey.

[2015]JRC215

Royal Court

(Samedi)

23 October 2015

Before     :

T. J. Le Cocq, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Kerley and Blampied

The Attorney General

-v-

Adrian Marius Adam

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

First Indictment

5 counts of:	Fraud (Counts 1 to 5).
8 counts of:	Obtaining services by false pretences (Counts 6, 7, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22 and 24).
9 counts of:	Attempting to obtain services by false pretences (Counts 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 16).

Second Indictment

5 counts of:

Removing criminal property from Jersey, contrary to Article 31(d) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1 to 5).

Age:  30.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant Adam, a Romanian national, was one of a small group of Romanian criminals who targeted Jersey as both a platform from which to commit internet frauds against victims around the world, and as a place in which to commit crimes against banks and mobile phone retailers.  Haffner, also a Romanian national, joined Adam in Jersey at the end of his offending in a single offence of obtaining goods by deception as well as engaging in a conspiracy with other members of the criminal gang to pervert the course of justice by concealing evidence of fraud.

The internet frauds resulted in five would-be holiday makers based in Australia and the US parting with a total of £7,800 through an on-line scam perpetrated by Adam in which bogus holiday booking web sites were created to lure victims.  The victims believed they were paying to rent holiday apartments, but instead the money was routed to a Jersey bank account set up by Adam, (Fraud x 5).  From that account, the funds were transferred the very same day to accounts in London where other gang members withdrew the proceeds in cash, (money laundering x 5).

At the same time as the internet frauds were being committed, (from August to November 2014), Adam travelled to Jersey from the UK on several occasions.  On these visits he used forged identity papers in a number of false names either to open or attempt to open Jersey bank accounts, (obtaining/attempting to obtain services by false pretences).  Where successful in opening such accounts, he then used those account details and the false identities to obtain both hire purchase loans and contracts for a string of high-end electronic devices from financial services provides and retailers in Jersey, goods and services worth some £4,700 in total.  In each instance, Adam paid only the initial deposit on each of the devices, which were then taken back to the UK and sold for his benefit and that of another gang member.  The hire purchase loans, used to buy other such devices, were never repaid. 

Haffner joined Adam on Adam's final visit to Jersey and stayed with him in a rented apartment in St Helier.  She assisted him acquiring a smart phone by deception.  She then returned to the apartment where, following Adam's arrest, she received, from a third gang member, text instructions to find and destroy some of the forged identity documents which Adam had used in his offending.  She was arrested before she could carry out her instructions. 

Aggravating features:

Abuse of Jersey's good name in the internet frauds, and abuse of the Island's financial systems to receive and pay away the proceeds of those frauds, well-planned and sophisticated deceptions across the indictment, carried out with skill and over a protracted period by a gang which targeted Jersey expressly for the purpose and in order to distance themselves from their offending.  

Details of Mitigation:

Acceptably comprehensive guilty pleas were offered at a reasonably early stage in the life of the case, previous good character, admissions in interview. 

Previous Convictions:

None.

Conclusions:

First Indictment

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	9 months' imprisonment, consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 7:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 8:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 9:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 t0 5.
Count 10:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 11:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 12:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 13:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 14:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 15:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 16:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 17:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 18:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 19:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 20:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 22:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 24:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to the First Indictment.
Count 2:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years' imprisonment.

Recommendation for deportation sought.

Confiscation Order hearing to be adjourned to 25^th November, 2015.

Sentence and Observations of Court:

In the case of Adam the total of 2 years' imprisonment was appropriate, but the sentences for obtaining or attempting to obtain Jersey bank accounts by false pretences merited sentences of 12 months' apiece, although these would be concurrent so that the 2 year total was not affected. 

The assault on the integrity of the Island's banking system in order to commit fraud was a particularly aggravating feature of the offending, although the transfer of the proceeds of the internet frauds to bank accounts in London, though charged as separate offences of laundering, was in reality an element of the internet frauds themselves such that concurrent sentences were appropriate. 

First Indictment

Count 1:	15 months' imprisonment.
Count 2:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	15 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 11:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 12:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 13:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 14:	12 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 15:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 16:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 17:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 18:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 19:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 20:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 22:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.
Count 24:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent, but consecutive to Counts 1 to 5.

Second Indictment

Count 1:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent to the First Indictment.
Count 2:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 3:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 4:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years' imprisonment.

Recommendation for deportation made.

Confiscation Order hearing to be adjourned to 25^th November, 2015.

M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J. F. Orchard for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        You are to be sentenced today for a wide range of criminal conduct in 2014 of a fraudulent nature.  That conduct comprised relatively sophisticated internet fraud where, by identity theft, you defrauded people out of money believing that they were buying holiday accommodation.  You obtained bank accounts by deception or attempted to do so; you obtained personal loans by deception, and you obtained luxury electronic goods that you sold on for your benefit.  To carry out some of these activities you used forged documentation.  You have also pleaded guilty to money laundering charges but, we agree with the Crown and with the submission of your defence counsel, that they were part of the internet frauds and do not reflect additional criminality and on these facts should not result in an additional sentence.  The total value of the money or goods that you obtained was some £12,500. 

2.        The Crown has listed a number of aggravating features and we agree with those features as listed by the Crown and as to their aggravating nature.  We see as particularly serious your use and attempted use of the Jersey banking system to perpetrate your fraudulent activity. 

3.        We have considered the mitigation that has been advanced on your behalf, in particular your guilty plea, your cooperation with the prosecution authorities, and the fact that you have no previous criminal convictions.  We have noted your letter of remorse and apology, all of which, we agree, should be given full weight.  Your advocate has said all that could possibly be said on your behalf by way of mitigation but, in our view, the Crown has made adequate allowance in its conclusions for the mitigation that is available to you. 

4.        Before sentencing we note that the Crown wishes to make an application for confiscation.  We do not feel it appropriate at this point to form any view as to the public interest in connection with this application, and we adjourn the application for confiscation to a directions hearing that will follow immediately after this sentencing hearing. 

5.        We believe that the sentence of the Court should be, in part, of a deterrent nature to deter the use of the banking system for criminal purposes.  On the First Indictment in respect of Counts 1 to 5, the internet fraud, we sentence you to 15 months' imprisonment.  With regard to Counts 6 to 14, which are the bank account frauds, we think the Crown's assessment of 9 months is not sufficient and we sentence you to 12 months imprisonment for each of those, those sentences in respect of Counts 1 to 5 and 6 to 14, in the light of totality, to be treated as concurrent sentences.  With regard to Counts 15 to 20 and Counts 22 and 24, we agree with the Crown's assessment of 9 months imprisonment, concurrent with each other but consecutive with the sentences that I have already mentioned, and on the Second Indictment we agree that the appropriate sentence is 9 months' imprisonment for each count, concurrent with each other and concurrent with the sentences on the First Indictment, making a total, as moved for by the Crown, of 2 years' imprisonment. 

6.        We turn now to the matter of deportation.  That has not, in fact, been resisted by your counsel and, in our view, the test for deportation set out in the guideline case of Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462 is passed in the circumstances and we will recommend your deportation at the conclusion of your sentence. 

Authorities

Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.

Camacho-v-AG [2007] JLR 462

Channing-v-AG 2001/213.