Anonymized Summary of Legal Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

These are two appeals against sentence brought with leave of the Single Judge. At the Crown Court in The City, two individuals (referred to below as "Appellant" and "Co-Appellant") pleaded guilty on re-arraignment to a single count on the indictment: conspiracy to conceal, convert, disguise or transfer criminal property contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The Appellant pleaded guilty on 9 January 2024 and the Co-Appellant on 5 March 2024. Both were sentenced on 20 August 2024 by Judge Maylin. The Co-Appellant was sentenced to 8 years' imprisonment and the Appellant to 7 years and 2 months' imprisonment. A statutory surcharge order will be dealt with following Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings.

The underlying criminal activity involved an organised criminal group based in The Region that supplied and exported large quantities of Class A drugs (primarily cocaine) on a wholesale commercial scale, generating millions of pounds in cash. The organisation used couriers and a range of covert methods to move both drugs and cash, and law enforcement obtained considerable evidence from encrypted communications and telephone data (referred to in the text as evidence from EncroChat and burner phones). The gang was led by a person referred to here as "Leader", who controlled properties in The Region and delegated tasks to trusted subordinates, including the Appellant and Co-Appellant.

The criminal investigation (referred to in the text as an operation name) produced evidence of very large movements of cash and significant consignments of cocaine. Examples relied on at sentence included interceptions of over £1 million in cash and seizures of large consignments of cocaine with multi-million pound street values. The Appellant and Co-Appellant were identified through communications associated with particular encrypted handles (referred to here as "Handle A" and "Handle B"), which showed discussions of substantial cash amounts over defined periods in 2020. Both men declined to answer questions in police interview.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge was entitled to increase the notional starting points derived from the Money Laundering Guideline to reflect the Harm associated with the underlying drug conspiracy (the "Harm B" adjustment), thereby moving sentences outside the guideline ranges.
2. Whether the sentences imposed on the Appellant and the Co-Appellant were manifestly excessive, including whether the judge erred in categorising the Appellant's culpability (alleged error that the Appellant should have been placed in category 3B rather than 3A).
3. Whether parity between the two appellants required a larger differential in sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• On behalf of the Co-Appellant, Attorney Garcha (adopted by Attorney Lally at hearing) submitted that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The Co-Appellant accepted the broader context justified some uplift but argued the judge erred in the extent of the uplift — specifically that moving from a Money Laundering Guideline starting point of 8 years to a notional 12 years went entirely outside the guideline range and was unjustified by the facts.
• On behalf of the Appellant, Attorney Lally submitted that the Appellant should have been regarded as category 3B rather than 3A, with a starting point of 5 years (category range 3–6 years) rather than the starting point used by the judge. Counsel argued this error produced double counting when the judge also adjusted for the underlying drugs offending and that the notional uplift to 10 years was excessive. Counsel additionally urged that parity required a wider distinction between the two sentences, as the difference imposed was only ten months.
• Both appellants accepted that no criticism should be made of the credit given for guilty pleas and that the judge applied what were described as generous reductions for remorse and personal mitigation.

Respondent's Arguments

• Attorney Brocklehurst submitted that this was an extraordinary, large-scale commercial conspiracy justifying sentences outside the Money Laundering Guideline range to reflect the underlying drugs offending. He emphasised the serious harm caused by the quantities of cocaine involved and that both appellants knowingly facilitated a massive criminal enterprise, enabling leading figures to operate from a foreign jurisdiction.
• It was submitted that the judge properly weighed all mitigating factors and that both appellants occupied roles sufficiently significant to justify placement in a high culpability category and the uplift for Harm B. The respondent submitted the judge had adequate material to select the starting points she chose and to apply the uplift amounts (4 years in the Co-Appellant's notional sentence and 3.5 years in the Appellant's), and that differences in amounts and periods of involvement justified the divergence in sentences between them.
• On parity, the respondent maintained there was nothing irrational in the sentences imposed given the distinguishing features identified by the judge and the material before her.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court addressed whether the sentencing judge was entitled to uplift the notional starting points from the Money Laundering Guideline to reflect the Harm associated with the underlying commercial-scale drugs conspiracy (the guideline's "Harm B" provision), and whether the resulting sentences were manifestly excessive.

The court first reviewed the factual matrix relied on at sentence: a large-scale organised enterprise operating in The Region, wholesale supply and export of cocaine, the movement of large cash sums, and the role of the Leader operating from abroad through trusted lieutenants. The court noted the guideline categories for money laundering (Harm categories by monetary value) and observed that although the appellants' individual laundering-related conduct fell into category 3 (money laundered in the £500,000–£2 million band), the conspiracy as a whole concerned around £10 million (pushing the overall enterprise towards higher guideline categories).

The court emphasised the Money Laundering Guideline's express instruction (the "Harm B" provision) that where money laundering is linked to an identifiable underlying offence, the court should take into account the harm associated with that underlying offence and, where appropriate, adjust the starting point upward within or outside the guideline range. The court also reviewed the Drugs Guideline, which sets out significantly higher starting points for large-scale commercial drug supply and explains that very large-scale operations may justify sentences of 20 years or more depending on role.

The court analysed precedent (Khan, Shaun Smith, Cavanagh, Ogden, Campbell, Thompson) which collectively guide how to balance an individual's role within a conspiracy against the overall harm of the conspiracy. Key points derived from that jurisprudence and applied here included:

• It is appropriate to categorise the conspiracy by reference to overall harm while still assessing individual culpability for sentencing hierarchy.
• A sentencing judge may, in a particular case, adjust an individual's category to reflect a smaller role within a large conspiracy, but the fact of involvement in the wider conspiracy is an aggravating factor.
• When two guidelines are relevant (money laundering and drugs supply), the proper approach is not simply to adopt the heavier guideline but to seek a balanced sentence — often by reference to a point between the starting points each guideline would suggest.

Applying these principles to the present facts, the court concluded that the judge was entitled to take account of the underlying drugs offending when sentencing for the money laundering offences and to make substantial upward adjustments from the money laundering starting points to reflect that harm. The court accepted that it might have been arguable that the judge could have started at an even higher category in light of the whole conspiracy, but proceeded on the basis the judge treated the appellants within category 3A (or at least that category was arguable).

The court considered whether the judge had erred in categorisation or in applying uplifts. It found no merit in the submission that the Appellant was wrongly categorised as 3A rather than 3B and no material error in the judge's approach to parity between the two sentences. Importantly, the court considered the judge's choice of uplifts (4 years and 3½ years in the notional sentences) and concluded that, given the extraordinary scale of the conspiracy and the acknowledged generous reductions applied for mitigation and pleas, those uplifts were not manifestly excessive.

The court therefore concluded that the sentencing exercise performed by the judge — considering the Money Laundering Guideline, the underlying Drugs Guideline, and precedent instructing a balanced approach between competing guidelines — supported the sentence selections made.

Holding and Implications

APPEALS DISMISSED.

Direct effects on the parties:

• The Co-Appellant's sentence of 8 years' imprisonment and the Appellant's sentence of 7 years and 2 months' imprisonment are upheld.
• The statutory surcharge order (and Proceeds of Crime Act related matters) will be addressed as stated in the sentencing material (to be dealt with at the conclusion of Proceeds of Crime Act proceedings).

Broader implications:

The court applied and endorsed the established approach of taking into account the harm of an identifiable underlying offence when sentencing for money laundering (the "Harm B" adjustment), and of balancing the relevant starting points from money laundering and drugs supply guidelines — often by selecting a point between those starting points rather than automatically selecting the heavier guideline. The court concluded that in large-scale conspiracies this approach may justify substantial uplifts from money laundering guideline starting points. The opinion did not announce a new rule beyond the application of these established principles.