Jersey Unreported Judgments

Inferior Number Sentencing - converting the proceeds of criminal property

[2022]JRC101

Royal Court

(Samedi)

25 April 2022

Before     :

R. M. MacRae, Esq., Deputy Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Pitman

The Attorney General

-v-

Muhiddin Umurzokov

Anvarjon Eshonkulov

and

Batsukh Bataa

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

Muhiddin Umurzokov

7 counts of:	Converting criminal property, contrary to Article 31 (1) (c) Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 1, 2, 6, 7, 11,12,13)
3 counts of:	Attempting to convert criminal property, contrary to Article 1 (1) Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009 and Article 31 (1) (c) Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 5, 17,19)
3 counts of:	Possessing criminal property, contrary to Article 30 (1) (c) Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 20, 21, 22).

Age:  50. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

The defendants made two trips to Jersey in order to launder approximately £60,000 in Jersey bank notes on behalf of another organised crime group.

 

On the first trip, Umurzokov visited Jersey on his own.  During the weekend he converted £7,000 into US Dollars at the Post Office and paid £2,000 into a UK account controlled by him but in the name of another person, at Lloyd's Bank (Counts 1 and 2). 

 

On the second trip to Jersey, Umurzokov, Eshonkulov and Bataa made a series of visits to banks, the Post Office, car dealerships and shops, making 13 further conversions in the total sum of approximately £36,000 (Counts 3, 6-16 and 18) by purchasing mobile telephones and other consumer devices, and making exchanges or deposits at the counters or automated deposit machines of three bank branches and the post office.  They also attempted unsuccessfully to convert £38,000 cash into UK currency at the post office and a bank (Counts 4 and 5); and attempted unsuccessfully to convert further tens of thousands of pounds by purchasing a valuable watch and new cars (Counts 17 and 19). 

 

As they attempted to leave the island at the end of the week the defendants' car was searched and officers found the electronic devices and clothing that had been purchased, together with cash of £13,077 in Jersey bank notes, £2,355 in Bank of England notes and €2,550 (Counts 20-22).

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; no relevant previous convictions. References.

Previous Convictions:

Four offences of abusive behaviour and assault (2019).

Conclusions:

Count 1:	3 years and 9 month's imprisonment.
Count 2:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 11:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 12:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 13:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 17:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 19	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 20:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 21:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 22:	3 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  3 years and 9 months imprisonment, concurrent on all counts.

The Crown seek that confiscation proceedings be postponed to a date, to be fixed, during the first quarter of 2023. 

Recommendation for deportation sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 1:	4 years' imprisonment.
Count 2:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 5:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 6:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 7:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 11:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 12:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 13:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 17:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 19	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 20:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 21:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 22:	4 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  Starting point 6 years' imprisonment.  4 years' imprisonment, concurrent on all counts.

Confiscation proceedings to be heard on the first open date after 1^st September, 2022.

Recommendation for deportation ordered. 

Anvarjon Eshonkulov

9 counts of:	Converting criminal property, contrary to Article 31 (1) (c) Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18)
3 counts of:	Attempting to convert criminal property, contrary to Article 1 (1) Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009 and Article 31 (1) (c) Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 4, 17, 19)
3 counts of:	Possessing criminal property, contrary to Article 30 (1) (c) Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 20, 21, 22).

Age:  49. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Umurzokov above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; no relevant previous convictions. References. 

Previous Convictions:

Not applicable.

Conclusions:

Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 13:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 14:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 15:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 16:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 17:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 18:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 19:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 20:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 21:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 22:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent on all counts.

The Crown seek that confiscation proceedings be postponed to a date, to be fixed, during the first quarter of 2023. 

Recommendation for deportation sought. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 13:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 14:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 15:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 16:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 17:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 18:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 19:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 20:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 21:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 22:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  Starting point of 5 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent on all counts.

Confiscation proceedings to be heard on the first open date after 1^st September, 2022.

Recommendation for deportation ordered. 

Batsukh Bataa

7 counts of:	Converting criminal property, contrary to Article 31 (1) (c) Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 3, 8, 9,10, 14, 16, 18)
1 count of:	Attempting to convert criminal property, contrary to Article 1 (1) Criminal Offences (Jersey) Law 2009 and Article 31 (1) (c) Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Count 4).
3 counts of:	Possessing criminal property, contrary to Article 30 (1) (c) Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 (Counts 20, 21 22).

Age:  52. 

Plea: Guilty.

Details of Offence:

See Umurzokov above.

Details of Mitigation:

Guilty pleas; no relevant previous convictions. References.

Previous Convictions:

Not applicable. 

Conclusions:

Count 3:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment.
Count 4:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 14:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 16:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 18:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 20:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 21:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 22:	2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total: 2 years and 9 months' imprisonment, concurrent on all counts.

The Crown seek that confiscation proceedings be postponed to a date, to be fixed, during the first quarter of 2023. 

Sentence and Observations of Court:

Count 3:	3 years' imprisonment.
Count 4:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 8:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 9:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 10:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 14:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 16:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 18:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 20:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 21:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.
Count 22:	3 years' imprisonment, concurrent.

Total:  Starting point 5 years' imprisonment.  3 years' imprisonment, concurrent on all counts.

Confiscation proceedings to be heard on the first open date after 1^st September, 2022.

D. J. Hopwood Esq., Crown Advocate.

Advocate J-A. Dix for the Defendant Umurzokov.

Advocate A. M. Harrison for Defendant Eshonkulov.

Advocate S. E. A. Dale for Defendant Bataa.

JUDGMENT

THE DEPUTY BAILIFF:

1.        Mr Umurzokov, Mr Eshonkulov and Ms Bataa, you all stand before the Court to be sentenced today for serious offences of money laundering. 

2.        I am invited by the Crown to deal first with the application for confiscation.  We reject the Crown's request to postpone the determination of confiscation until 2023.  Nonetheless we are satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for there to be a short extension of the six month period following conviction permitted by statute for the purpose of confiscation.  We order the Crown to provide the Attorney General's statement setting out his position in relation to confiscation by 31^st July, 2022, the defence to respond by 31^st August, 2022, and for the hearing to take place on the first open date after the 1^st September with a time estimate of 1 day, the date to be fixed within 7 days of today. 

3.        Returning to the offences, Mr Umurzokov, you are 50 years old; Mr Eshonkulov, you are 49; and Ms Bataa, you are 52.  Mr Umurzokov, you pleaded guilty to 13 counts of money laundering; Mr Eshonkulov, to 15 counts of money laundering; and Miss Bataa to 11 counts of money laundering.

4.        In early October last year, Mr Umurzokov, you came to Jersey in order to launder Jersey bank notes in the sum of £9,000 which you did by way of converting £7,000 into US dollars at the post office and £2,000 you paid into a bank account in the name of Mr Ruszo, who we hear is a friend of yours.  As you are an undischarged bankrupt in the United Kingdom, you use Mr Ruszo's account for your own purposes including the receipt of UK benefits.  After that trip, all three of you came to Jersey on 25^th October 2021 in a motorcar which, it is said, had been loaned to Mr Umurzokov.  You were booked to return three days later on 28^th October.  It is accepted that the travel and accommodation for all of you were paid for by an organised crime group.

5.        Over the course of the next three days, the three of you worked as a team trying to get rid of approximately £53,000 in Jersey notes.

6.        The Jersey banknotes were plainly the proceeds of criminal conduct which, for one reason or another, had found their way to the United Kingdom - where they were then delivered to Mr Umurzokov by an organised crime group with whom, on the evidence we have, he was closely connected.

7.        Indeed, Mr Umurzokov had done work for this organised crime group before.  The Probation report says that he described the group as an 'Afghanistan gang' to whom you owed money.  Whether or not you in fact owed this gang money is of little relevance to your sentence Mr Umurzokov.  It is said that you and your sister received threats arising from the fact that she owed some money to people in Turkey arising from goods wrongly expropriated from her in 2011 and other goods seized from her in Uzbekistan or Turkey or Kazakhstan in 2019, and that they made threats to you for the purpose of securing repayment.  Whatever the truth of this, by the time these offences were committed, your sister had obtained sanctuary by obtaining a visa admitting her to enter the United Kingdom which was granted on 1^st October 2021 and she arrived in London shortly thereafter.  Accordingly, when you committed these offences, she was under no threat and, in our view, you were under no threat or, to the extent that you were, it cannot excuse this offending. 

8.        As to the activities you previously involved yourself in with this organised crime group prior to these offences, they included, according to the Probation report, picking up cash from Manchester and delivering it to locations in London.  This was another instance of you involving yourself in money laundering.

9.        Furthermore, one of the features of these offences is that you presented a document (with Mr Eshonkulov) purporting to show that you had sold a motor vehicle in the United Kingdom for £12,800 'Jersey pounds'.  This document you had also used on a previous occasion the year before when you were exporting English bank notes to Istanbul and were stopped at Stansted airport.  The same document was used by your two co-defendants after they attempted to exchange £25,000 of Jersey money for UK pounds when they went to the post office on 26^th October 2021 (Count 4). 

10.      It is not necessary for us to set out the detail of all the offences that you committed in Jersey - they have been read by the Crown this morning, and the Crown's summary of facts has been provided to the media and will be summarised when our sentencing remarks are published in due course.  It is clear that all three of you benefitted personally and directly from this offending although you deny that today.  We have mentioned the fact that the accommodation and travel was paid for by an organised crime group.  Payments were made by you, Mr Umurzokov, for your benefit by via Mr Ruszo's account.  Mr Eshonkulov, you made payments into your HSBC bank account (Counts 3 and 14), and Miss Bataa - you also personally benefitted from these transactions - not merely by virtue of the payments into your husband's bank account but also buying clothes (Count 18) and using Jersey notes to pay off your own credit card (Count 16).  We reject the assertion that you were going to repay all these sums as fanciful.

11.      Many of the offences you committed together - for example, all three of you took turns to visit the IQ store in which over £20,000 of criminal monies was converted. 

12.      It is said on behalf on the Crown on your behalf, Miss Bataa, that you are less culpable than your husband in respect of this offending.

13.      Having regard to the evidence as a whole, we reject that assertion.  Unlike your two co-defendants who have a poor command of English and required the assistance of translators, you are fluent in English.  Furthermore, you have spent 20 years working as an accountant - 6 years in Mongolia and 14 in the United Kingdom.  You were financially aware and, in our judgment, knew exactly what you were doing when committing these offences.  It is no surprise that between you you agreed that when you left Jersey you would all be in possession of the same sum in terms of tainted Jersey notes - each declaring £4,000 in your possession.  We note the Probation Officer at paragraph 14 of your report Ms Bataa expresses a level of scepticism regarding your self-reported naivety and degree of complicity.  The report continues "in particular a person with a qualification in accountancy might be expected to be more aware of financial crime".  We agree.  When it came to your offending in Jersey, you were all in this together and there is little to distinguish between you, and we reject any assertion to the contrary as implausible. 

14.      All of you were involved in between 11 and 15 separate offences and each of you working as a team, as we have said, was responsible for laundering in excess of £20,000.  In the circumstances we accept that this was a well-planned professional money laundering operation designed to convert tainted Jersey bank notes which you all knew, or suspected, were the proceeds of crime into cash and other assets that were not so tainted.

15.      We give you all credit for your guilty pleas.  In order to receive full credit it is nearly always necessary for guilty pleas now to be entered before the Magistrate's Court.  We accept that that was not possible in this case because the single charge that you jointly faced was materially different to the Indictment in that it did not reflect your criminality.  You entered guilty pleas shortly after the case was indicted, saving the Court from a two week trial and, accordingly, you will receive full credit for those pleas of guilty.

16.      In relation to Mr Eshonkulov and Miss Bataa, you receive credit for your previous good character and for the matters raised on your behalf.  As to you Mr Umurzokov, in view of the fact that you had already been busy laundering money for an organised crime group, it would be inappropriate for you to receive credit for your good character, notwithstanding the absence of previous convictions in your case.

17.      We have read what has been said in the pre-sentence reports in each case and have listened with care to all that has been said on your behalf.

18.      These offences are so serious that only custodial sentences can be justified.  We have considered the authorities placed before us and note in the case of AG v Rae and Spinola [2017] JRC 080 in a case of a not dissimilar sum in cash (just over £62,000), the Court accepted a starting point of between 6 and 7 years imprisonment. 

19.      We note the Court of Appeal in Rae v AG [2017] JCA 197 observed at paragraph 17 that all the money laundering cases referred to them were cases "decided on their own facts and the mitigation there set out".  None of the cases cited to us were on all fours with this case. 

20.      In the case of AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165 the Royal Court at paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 set out the principles which the Court should have regard to when dealing with money laundering cases.  There are eight principles listed at paragraphs 4, 5 and 6.

"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."

21.      Applying those principles to this case, we note as follows:

(i)        It is not possible to identify the predicate offence.  This appears to us to be a neutral factor as these were on any view the proceeds of crime.  In AG v Fish & Hinds [2016] JRC 181A the Court said at paragraph 3 of its judgment that the fact that the antecedent offence could not be identified "does not matter".  It simply means that we cannot tie the offending to a particular underlying form of criminal conduct. 

(ii)       As to the second factor, the criminality in this case is also the assistance, support, and encouragement it provides to criminal conduct.  This is a factor of importance as Mr Umurzokov was trusted by an organised crime group to, as he had done in the past, transfer cash from one place to another and, in this instance, attempt to launder that cash having previously, just a few days beforehand, successfully done so.  There can be no doubt that because of Mr Umurzokov's closeness to that organised crime group and the offences represented by Counts 1 and 2 that a higher starting point is warranted in your case.  Nonetheless, Mr Eshonkulov and Miss Bataa worked together with Mr Umurzokov as a team in Jersey.  They were supporting and encouraging and assisting Mr Umurzokov in his criminal conduct. 

(iii)      The third factor listed in Goodwin has no relevance to this case.

(iv)      As to the fourth factor, the amount of money laundered or intended to be laundered by the three of you was, as we have said, in excess of £53,000 with the additional £9,000 laundered by Mr Umurzokov working alone in early October. 

(v)       The period of the offending is identified in the indictment

(vi)      We note that there is no distinction to be drawn between the laundering of one own's proceeds of crime and the proceeds of crime committed by a third party - in this case it appears that the criminal conduct was that of a third party.

(vii)     This was a well-planned money laundering operation.  An aggravating feature of these offences is that the Jersey bank notes were bought to the island for the express purpose of being laundered here.  This was a risky operation but a risk that you were all prepared to take and did so touring St Helier in order to attempt (often successfully) to convert these monies into cash and / or purchase goods.  We have already expressed our disquiet at the quantity of cash that the IQ shop was prepared to accept and asked for an explanation as to how this could have occurred.  We look forward to receiving this in due course and direct that any response be copied to the Jersey Financial Services Commission and any other relevant regulatory body.

(viii)    The final factor that is to be taken into account is the interests of Jersey as a finance centre, which justifies an element of deterrence in the sentence.  This is a significant factor in the circumstances of the facts of this case, when the defendants have targeted Jersey businesses including the post office, banks, and shops in order to launder cash and when the message must go out that the Courts of Jersey will not tolerate financial crime, particularly money laundering. 

22.      Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the sentences we impose are as follows:

23.      Mr Umurzokov - from a starting point of 6 years, your sentence is 4 years imprisonment.

24.      Mr Eshonkulov - from a starting point of 5 years, you are sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

25.      Ms Bataa - from a starting point of 5 years, you are sentenced to 3 years imprisonment.

26.      As to deportation, Mr Umurzokov and Mr Eshonkulov, the Crown also sought an order recommending your deportation from Jersey, these request were not substantively opposed.  A deportation notice was served on you both on 29^th November 2021.  Neither of you are British citizens and you have both been convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment.  We are satisfied in both your cases that:

(i)        Your continued presence is detrimental to the island, as you have both pleaded guilty to a number of serious offences of money laundering; and

(ii)       Owing to the absence of any ties to the island in either of your cases, the effect of your deportation from Jersey will not be disproportionate having regard to your human rights and those of persons connected to you. 

27.      Accordingly we recommend your deportation.  The extent to which your rights to reside in the United Kingdom may be affected by this recommendation is not a matter for this Court.

Authorities

AG v Rae and Spinola [2017] JRC 080. 

Rae v AG [2017] JCA 197. 

AG v Goodwin [2016] JRC 165. 

AG v Fish & Hinds [2016] JRC 181A. 

AG v Gomes and others [2007] JRC 129. 

Bhojwani v AG [2011] JCA 034. 

Hagin v AG [2020] JCA 247. 

AG v. Pearce [2021] JRC 203. 

AG v. Fish and Hinds [2016] JRC 181A. 

AG v. Arthur [2020] JCA 016. 

Camacho v AG [2007] JLR 462.