Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Jersey Unreported Judgments
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Pearce [2021] JRC 182 (05 July 2021)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2021/2021_182.html
Cite as: [2021] JRC 182
[New search] [Help]
Superior Number Sentencing - converting the proceeds of criminal property
|
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith O.B.E., Commissioner, and Jurats Thomas, Ronge and Austin-Vautier. |
The Attorney General
-v-
Darius James Pearce
Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 19th March, 2021, following conviction at trial before the Inferior Number to the following charges:
|
3 counts of: |
Entering into or becoming concerned in an arrangement that facilitates, by any means, the acquisition, use, possession or control of criminal property by or on behalf of another person, contrary to Article 30(3) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 10, 11 and 12). |
Age: 49.
Plea: Not Guilty.
Details of Offence:
The defendant laundered cash on behalf of a criminal enterprise that was engaged in the importation and supply of controlled drugs in Jersey on a commercial scale. He was convicted on 17th December 2020 following a 6 day Inferior Number trial.
The case stems from a joint investigation conducted by the States of Jersey Police and the Jersey Customs and Immigration Service. The surveillance operation targeted numerous persons of interest and lasted several months. The operation culminated in the seizure of MDMA, cocaine and cannabis resin with a street value of up to £919,000, having been imported by boat at Bel Val Bay on 21 June 2019.
The defendant was the director of Jersey Online Traders Limited, a holding company under which he was involved in several business ventures. One of those ventures was a jewellery business which the defendant ran from a shop in the Central Market in St. Helier, Darius Pearce Jewellers.
The defendant used his jewellery business to facilitate the movement of criminal property from Jersey to the UK through the purchase and sale of bullion. This enabled cash to be removed from the Island under the cover of legitimate transactions, and without the cash being physically carried out of the jurisdiction.
The process was straightforward, effected in four simple steps. Firstly, a sum of cash would be handed to the Defendant at his jewellery shop. Secondly, the Defendant would deposit that cash into his personal and business bank accounts. Thirdly, the Defendant would use the cash to purchase gold bullion from a dealer based in Hatton Garden in London. Fourthly, the gold would be collected from the London dealer and sold for cash.
The cash would then be available to UK-based members of the criminal enterprise to be used to purchase drugs, or otherwise to cover the operating costs of the enterprise.
The defendant was convicted on three separate occasions of laundering money according to the steps set out above.
The total sum of money laundered was unknown but it was established that the defendant purchased gold bullion at a cost £63,917.61 using criminal property.
Details of Mitigation:
Personal mitigation was limited. The Court did consider the references provided by family members and a psychiatric report that showed the defendant presented with traits of a personality disorder (the report did not find any mental illness or incapacity).
Previous Convictions:
The defendant had four convictions for nine offences, which include public order, motoring and fraud offences. His most recent previous conviction was in 2008 for social security fraud.
Conclusions:
|
Count 10: |
Starting point 8½ years' imprisonment . 7½ years imprisonment. |
|
Count 11: |
Starting point 8½ years' imprisonment. 7½ years imprisonment, concurrent. |
|
Count 12: |
Starting point 8½ years' imprisonment. 7½ years imprisonment, concurrent. |
Total: 7½ years' imprisonment.
Adjournment of the confiscation proceedings sought on the basis that there were exceptional circumstances in accordance with Article 6 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 to justify an adjournment.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
Conclusions granted.
M. R. Maletroit Esq., Crown Advocate.
Mr Pearce appeared on his own behalf.
(Advocate I. C. Jones attended to assist the Court).
JUDGMENT
THE COMMISSIONER:
1. The Court has considered the submissions made by the defendant representing himself and by Advocate Jones who has stayed on in Court to assist for which we are grateful. In the light of those arguments we are going to set out our reasons in a written judgment which will follow shortly, but we can say that after careful consideration we agree with the conclusions of the Crown.
2. On each of Counts 10, 11 and 12 you are sentenced to 7½ years' imprisonment to run concurrently. That is a total of 7½ years' imprisonment.
3. In terms of the confiscation proceedings we agree that there are exceptional circumstances here warranting an adjournment of the Attorney General's application and that will therefore be adjourned for a date to be fixed and we direct the parties to attend upon the Bailiff's judicial secretary to fix that date.
4. We leave it to the Viscount as to whether she wishes to get the input of the defendant's brother, Thaddeus Pearce, on the third part claims set out in the inventory prepared by the Viscount.
Authorities
AG v Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A
AG v Rae and Spinola [2017] JRC 080