Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - attempting to remove criminal property from Jersey, contrary to Article 31(1)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.

[2016]JRC175

Royal Court

(Samedi)

30 September 2016

Before     :

W. J. Bailhache, Esq., Bailiff, and Jurats Liston and Thomas

The Attorney General

-v-

Carl James Turney

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

1 count of:

Attempting to remove criminal property from Jersey, contrary to Article 31(1)(d) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 1).

Age:  29.

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendant was stopped when boarding the ferry to the UK.  When asked he admitted to customs officers that a large amount of cash was concealed in his vehicle.  He told officers where to look and they located £42,000 cash in the passenger door, mostly Jersey notes.  The defendant told officers he was approached by a male in the UK and was motivated by a financial reward of £1,000 upon his return to the UK. 

Details of Mitigation:

Co-operative with investigation, early admissions, remorse, the Court noted that the defendant had significant support from his family. 

Previous Convictions:

Several previous convictions although none are directly relevant to the current offending. 

Conclusions:

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment, suspended for a period of 2 years.

Forfeiture in the sum of £42,000 sought.

Declaration of benefit sought in the sum of £700.

No Confiscation Order sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

The Court stated it was an extremely serious offence and adopted the principles set out in AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 146. 

The Court also held that this case was exceptional and that in normal circumstances a significant prison sentence in excess of 2 years' imprisonment.  In this case the Court found the defendant's medical and psychological problems were exceptional. 

Count 1:

2 years' imprisonment, suspended for a period of 2 years.

Forfeiture in the sum of £42,000 ordered under Article 2 of the Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders)(Jersey) Law 2001.

Declaration of benefit in the sum of £700.

No Confiscation Order made. 

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

Advocate J. M. Grace for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT

THE BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Turney, you are here to be sentenced on one count of attempting to remove criminal property from the Island, contrary to Article 31 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 in that you had concealed in the door panel of a sliver Mercedes the sum of £42,000 in cash.  You suspected or knew that this represented the proceeds of drug trafficking, and it is right that I say at the outset that this is an extremely serious offence. 

2.        The facts behind the offence were these.  You were travelling alone; on being stopped you were spoken to by customs officers, the search of the vehicle was completed, there was no sign of any controlled drugs but later on when you were on the way back you were asked if you were carrying anything and the customs officers were told that you were carrying a large amount of cash which could be found within the rear left passenger door.  £42,000 had been concealed, as I said.  You had been approached by a man who knew you came to Jersey frequently.  He had offered to pay you £1000 if you collected some cash and £500 to pay for your travel and accommodation and you told customs officers that you were more afraid of the male in the UK than of what was going to happen to you as a result of this offending.  

3.        The Court is invited by the Crown to declare benefit that you have made in the sum of £700, which we do.  We do not make a confiscation order because you appear to have no assets of your own, but we do make an order for forfeiture of the £42,000 seized from you under Article 2 of the Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001. 

4.        Mr Turney, you have parents who have supported you through a period of gambling addiction, and you have a wife and two children.  What you have done has imperilled three generations of your family.  It is quite obvious to this Court that you urgently need to attend Gamblers Anonymous or get some similar help from elsewhere. 

5.        It was said to us by Counsel that there have been few cases involving the laundering of drug trafficking proceeds, but the Court proceeds today on the basis of the Superior Number decision of this Court in the case of AG-v-Goodwin [2016] JRC 165.  Judgment was handed down on 15^th September. 

6.        In that case it was made perfectly clear that there was a change in sentencing policy and that the cases of AG-v-Michel [2007] JRC 120 and AG-V-Bhojwani [2007] JRC 120 which have been referred to should no longer be regarded as setting the standard for sentencing in this Court.  I quote some of the paragraphs from the Court's judgment in the case of Goodwin.

"4.      Money laundering is a serious offence which, by virtue of the Drug Trafficking Offences (Jersey) Law 1988 ("the Law"), carries a potential sentence of 14 years' imprisonment or an unlimited fine.  This Court has previously had regard to the English authority of R v Monfries [2004] 2 Cr. App. R.(S) 3, in which the English Court of Appeal set out a number of principles:-

(i)        There is not necessarily a direct relationship between the sentence for the laundering offence and the original antecedent offence.  Where, however, the particular antecedent offence can be identified, some regard will be had to the appropriate sentence for that offence when considering the appropriate sentence for the laundering offence. 

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

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

(iv)      The amount of money laundered is a relevant factor. 

5.        In AG v Gomes and others [2007] JRC 129, the Court indicated that in addition to these principles, regard should be had to the period of time during which the money laundering occurs. 

6.        In Bhojwani v AG [2011] JCA 034, the following principles were added:-

(i)        No distinction is to be drawn as a matter of law between the laundering of one's own proceeds of crime and the proceeds of crime committed by third parties. 

(ii)       A professional money laundering service is not necessarily more serious than laundering the proceeds of a one off fraud - it may be so, but each case will depend on its own facts. 

(iii)      The interests of Jersey as a finance centre justified an element of deterrence in the sentence. 

7.        In AG v Bhojwani [2010] JRC 116, the Royal Court had held that the duration, sophistication and scale of money laundering are also relevant considerations." 

At paragraph 12 in the case of Goodwin the Court said this:-

"12.    It is clear that the proceeds of drug trafficking in the instant case included the proceeds of trafficking in Class A drugs, because there were traces of MDMA or ecstasy found on some of the cash which was seized on a search of the defendant's home both in 2012 and again in 2015.  The maximum sentence for trafficking in Class A drugs is life imprisonment; and the maximum for trafficking in Class B drugs is 14 years' imprisonment.  Advocate Gollop did not dissent from the proposition that just as there would not for the most part be thieves without receivers, there would not be drug traffickers without money launderers.  There would be a very much reduced purpose in drug trafficking if the proceeds could not provide a benefit to the drug trafficker." 

I really want to emphasise that point to you because the drug trafficking causes real damage to the people of this Island and by assisting drug traffickers in money laundering their proceeds of drug trafficking you too have caused a damage to the people of this Island.  When you look at your own children and you think of drug traffickers having access to them you might like to think about the damage that you have done in this particular case. 

7.        Mr Goodwin was sent to prison for a period of 6 years.  The amount of money which he had laundered was considerably more than is the case here.  In his case the total was £596,000 and he did it over a 6-year period and, as your Counsel says here, only one incidence is involved.  But nonetheless £42,000 represents a considerable sum of money and a considerable amount of drug trafficking. 

8.        We want to make it plain in this case that we adopt the principles of Goodwin which we think is right, not only because it is a Superior Number decision we must apply.  Although we are adopting that case there are some differences which we ought to mention, as we do.  The first is that in that case the joint accounts used by Mr Goodwin implicated others, his wife and his daughter; that feature does not appear here.  Secondly, he also lied when first subject to investigation and he attempted to pervert the course of justice in that connection.  It was a much more sophisticated money laundering case and we should also note that in that case there was at least a mix of Class A and Class B drugs, or there may have been Class A drugs alone.  We do not know what drugs were involved in this case, but in a sense the fact that you did not know what drugs were the subject of your money laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking, in a sense the fact that you did not know, does not stand to your credit because you could easily have been helping the drug traffickers deal with trafficking in heroin or other Class A drugs. 

9.        In normal circumstances, there is no doubt at all that this offence you have committed calls for a significant prison sentence.  It may well call for a prison sentence in excess of 2 years' imprisonment and we absolutely do not accept the suggestion from your Counsel that a proper sentence would have been 12 months suspended. 

10.      We have had regard to all the mitigation which has been put before us; the fact that your record does not link you to organised crime, your immediate and full cooperation and admissions with the customs officers, we note that you have remorse and we accept that completely.  We also endorse what your Counsel has said that you are very lucky to have your parents' support.  We note that you have not benefitted personally, because in fact you were unsuccessful, although you would have benefitted to the tune of £1000 if you had been successful.  In normal circumstances, as I say, that offending would give rise to a significant immediate custodial sentence.  For exceptional reasons in this case, which we list as the medical conditions from which you suffer, the psychological conditions which are referred to in the papers and, indeed, having special regard to all the papers before the Court, we are going to take the view that the sentence should be suspended.  Because it is to be suspended the maximum sentence we can impose is 2 years' imprisonment, although we would in normal circumstances, if it were an immediate custodial sentence, certainly have considered a higher sentence. 

11.      On the one count on the Indictment on which you fall to be sentenced you are sentenced to 2 years' imprisonment, which will be suspended for a period of 2 years.  That means that if you commit any other offences, whether here or anywhere else during that period, you are liable to be brought back to this Island and the sentence will be activated and you will serve your sentence.  I want you to think carefully about all the things I have said to you. 

Authorities

Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999.

Criminal Justice (Forfeiture Orders) (Jersey) Law 2001.

AG-v-Goodwin [2016] JRC 165.

AG v Bhojwani [2010] JRC 116.

AG-v-Michel [2007] JRC 120

AG-v-Cleaver [2016] JRC 080.

AG-v-Bhojwani [2010] JLR N 34.

AG-v-McFeat, Smyth and Howard [2013] (2) JLR N 11.

AG-v-McFeat, Smyth and Howard [2013] JRC 137.

AG-v-Adam [2015] JRC 215.

Whelan on Aspects of Sentencing in the Superior Court of Jersey.