Regina v Anwoir & Ors

Factual and Procedural Background

On 16th March 2007, four appellants were convicted of multiple offences involving money laundering contrary to section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 ("POCA"). The appellants received varying sentences, including suspended and immediate imprisonment terms. Applications for leave to appeal against convictions and sentences were made by the appellants on various grounds, some of which had been previously refused by a single judge but were renewed or referred to the full court.

The money laundering charges stemmed from a police investigation into suspected drug dealers, involving undercover recordings of conversations with one appellant, which revealed connections to laundering proceeds from drug trafficking and VAT fraud (carousel fraud). The investigation extended to the affairs of several appellants and a bureau de change business, Express FX, which showed an extraordinary increase in turnover and suspicious financial transactions involving false invoices and unrecorded sums.

The indictment contained five counts related to various money laundering transactions and property dealings involving the appellants and associated businesses. Some appellants testified, denying knowledge of criminal origins of the funds, attributing the money to legitimate business dealings with wealthy clients, including the Saudi royal family. One appellant did not give evidence but his counsel presented his position in cross-examination.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether, under section 328 of POCA, the prosecution must prove the specific type or class of criminal conduct that generated the property involved in money laundering offences.
2. Whether the money laundering offences charged could lawfully cover conduct beginning before 24th February 2003, the commencement date of the relevant POCA provisions, or whether previous statutory provisions should apply.
3. Whether the summing up to the jury was adequate in fairly presenting the defence, particularly regarding evidence of transactions occurring while an appellant was abroad.
4. Whether the trial judge was correct in revisiting a prior ruling under section 35 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 concerning an appellant's fitness to give evidence, and in refusing to admit medical evidence regarding his condition before the jury.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• On the NW ground, appellants argued that the prosecution must establish the class or type of criminal conduct involved in generating the property, relying on the court's decision in R v NW, SW, RC and CC.
• They contended that the summing up was inadequate, failing to properly present the defence case, particularly omitting reference to 118 transactions bearing an appellant's initials during a period when she was verifiably abroad.
• Regarding the jurisdiction point, appellants submitted that charges covering conduct beginning before the POCA commencement date should have been brought under previous statutory provisions.
• One appellant challenged the judge's decision to revisit the section 35 ruling on his fitness to give evidence, arguing that fairness required a voir dire and admission of medical evidence before the jury, which the judge refused.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution submitted that under POCA, it is sufficient to prove either the specific kind or kinds of unlawful conduct or to rely on circumstantial evidence from which the only reasonable inference is that the property derives from crime.
• They argued that the charges properly related to conduct after the POCA commencement date and involved multiple transactions, not a single transaction straddling that date.
• The prosecution acknowledged the risk of unfairness due to refusal to admit medical evidence but noted the substantial evidence supporting the convictions.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analysed the conflicting authorities concerning the evidential requirements for proving money laundering offences under POCA section 328. It reconciled the apparent tension between requiring proof of the type of criminal conduct and allowing convictions based on circumstantial evidence from which the criminal origin of property could be inferred beyond reasonable doubt. The court affirmed that either method is permissible, provided the criminal standard of proof is met.

Regarding the jurisdictional issue, the court held that charges commencing on or after the POCA commencement date properly covered multiple transactions and did not require charging under previous legislation for conduct occurring before that date.

On the adequacy of the summing up, the court found the judge’s succinct directions sufficiently identified the relevant issues and evidence, and that the jury was not left in doubt, especially as the agreed facts were available to them.

In relation to the appellant who did not give evidence due to a stroke, the court accepted the judge’s discretion to revisit the section 35 ruling but found error in refusing to admit medical evidence before the jury. The court noted the prosecution’s recognition of potential unfairness and concluded that this unfairness rendered the jury’s verdicts unsafe for that appellant.

Holding and Implications

The court dismissed the appeals on the NW ground, jurisdiction ground, and grounds relating to the adequacy of the summing up for the respective appellants.

However, the court quashed the convictions of the appellant who did not give evidence due to the trial judge’s refusal to admit relevant medical evidence before the jury, finding the verdicts unsafe on grounds of unfairness. The court ordered submissions on whether a new trial should be held for this appellant.

The decision directly affects the appellants by affirming most convictions and dismissing several grounds of appeal, while creating an exception for the appellant whose convictions were quashed. The ruling does not establish new precedent but clarifies the application of existing case law on evidential requirements under POCA and procedural fairness in relation to section 35 rulings.