Kamran, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

On 20 March 2024, the Appellant was convicted of three counts of fraud under section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006 and one count of entering into or becoming concerned in a money laundering arrangement contrary to section 328(1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Appellant was sentenced on 1 May 2024 to concurrent imprisonment terms of 18 months for the fraud counts and 4 years for the money laundering count. The Appellant appeals against the conviction on the money laundering count by limited leave of a single judge.

The case revolves around the definition of "criminal property" under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Appellant was a director of Company A, a jewellery and gold bullion company. Police investigations uncovered a fraud scheme targeting mainly elderly victims, including Ms Driver, who was deceived into purchasing gold bullion worth approximately £1.343 million between July and August 2020. The fraudsters instructed Ms Driver to buy gold and leave it outside her home for collection, promising compensation which never materialised.

The Appellant purchased and delivered the gold to Ms Driver and the gold was subsequently collected by the fraudsters. The Appellant denied knowledge or suspicion that Ms Driver was a fraud victim, asserting that he believed she was a genuine customer converting investments into gold. The defence argued that the money paid by Ms Driver into the Appellant's business account was not criminal property at that time and that criminal property only arose after the gold was collected by the fraudsters, after the Appellant's involvement ended.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the money paid by Ms Driver into the Appellant's business account constituted "criminal property" at the time of receipt.
2. Whether the judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer on the money laundering count.
3. Whether the judge improperly restricted counsel from addressing the jury on the issue of when the property became criminal property during the arrangement.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The gold bullion was the relevant property and only became criminal property upon collection by the fraudsters, not at the time of Ms Driver’s payment.
• The money paid into the Appellant’s account was legitimate at the time and did not represent criminal property until converted into gold and taken by the fraudsters.
• The judge erred in rejecting the submission of no case to answer on this basis.
• The judge wrongly prevented counsel from addressing the jury on whether the property was criminal at the time the arrangement operated on it.
• The Appellant had no knowledge or suspicion that Ms Driver was being defrauded and believed she was a genuine customer converting investments.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The money transferred by Ms Driver was criminal property because it was obtained by fraud and represented the benefit of criminal conduct.
• The receipt of the money into the Appellant’s account rendered it criminal property, which was then converted into gold and collected by the fraudsters.
• If the property could only be criminal after theft by the fraudsters, the Appellant could not be guilty under section 328 unless he conspired with the fraudsters.
• The judge’s ruling on the point of law was correct and the Appellant’s defence related to his knowledge or suspicion, not the existence of criminal property.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court focused on the statutory definition of "criminal property" under sections 328 and 340 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, emphasising that property must be criminal property at the time the arrangement operates on it. The court analysed the facts in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in R v GH, which clarified that the property must already have the criminal quality due to prior criminal conduct independent of the arrangement itself.

The court found that the money transferred by Ms Driver was criminal property upon receipt by the Appellant’s company because it represented the benefit of the fraud perpetrated against her. This distinguished the case from Geary, where the property remained lawful throughout the arrangement.

The judge’s ruling that the money became criminal property when paid into the Appellant’s account was endorsed. The judge was correct to prevent counsel from undermining this legal position in closing submissions. The question for the jury was whether the Appellant knew or suspected that he was facilitating the acquisition of criminal property.

Holding and Implications

The appeal against the conviction on count 4 is DISMISSED.

The court upheld the legal principle that property becomes "criminal property" when it represents the benefit of prior criminal conduct at the time an arrangement operates on it. The ruling clarifies the application of section 328 in cases involving fraud proceeds and confirms that a defendant’s knowledge or suspicion relates to facilitating criminal property already tainted by criminal conduct. No new precedent was set beyond affirming established Supreme Court authority.