Summary of Opinion (Anonymised)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, aged 67, changed his pleas to guilty on 11 November 2024 in The City before Judge [Last Name] to four counts of fraudulently removing property in anticipation of the commencement of a winding up of a company (contrary to section 206(1)(b) of the Insolvency Act 1986) and one count of fraudulently removing property after the commencement of a winding up (contrary to section 206(1)(b) and 206(2)). On 28 February 2025 the Appellant was sentenced to 28 months' imprisonment on one count (the lead count) and concurrent sentences of 12 months' imprisonment on the remaining counts. The Appellant was also disqualified from being a company director for 15 years (not challenged on appeal).

The factual basis for the offending, as found by the sentencing judge, was that the Appellant had repeatedly set up and run a series of companies (referred to here as Company A, Company B, Company C, Company D and Company E). In multiple cases the Appellant put others nominally as directors while continuing to exercise control. In each case the companies incurred substantial debts and claims by the revenue authority; in the period before and/or after winding up the Appellant transferred substantial sums from company bank accounts into his own account at a casino (referred to here as Company F) and used those funds to gamble. Across the four companies at issue, a total of £702,050 was removed during relevant winding up periods. The Crown did not dispute that the Appellant had repaid the sums that had been taken.

Procedurally, the Appellant sought renewed leave to appeal the total sentence of 28 months' imprisonment after a single judge had refused leave. New counsel (Attorney Benson) filed a skeleton argument in support of the renewed application.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the renewed application for leave to appeal against the total sentence of 28 months' imprisonment should be granted.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The sentencing judge failed to accord sufficient weight to mitigation, which was argued to be exceptional: the Appellant acted as a carer for his wife, suffered health problems himself, and had extensive positive character material and community contributions.
• All monies had been repaid; the Appellant's intention to repay (and repayment) was emphasised as central mitigation, regardless of the means by which funds to repay had been obtained (i.e. by gambling).
• The sentencing judge undervalued the appropriate discount for the guilty pleas.

Respondent's (Crown) Position

• The Crown had suggested that the sentencing judge should have regard to the analogous fraud and false accounting guideline (as in R v Singh [2018] EWCA Crim 1725).
• The Crown did not dispute that repayment had been made.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court reviewed the sentencing exercise carried out by the sentencing judge and the renewed application for leave to appeal. The court's analysis proceeded in these steps, drawn from the opinion:

1. Presentation of offending: The sentencing judge characterised the offending as repeated, intentional and reckless fraudulent activity over a prolonged period involving four separate companies. The core misconduct was taking money that belonged to others and gambling it, thereby risking creditors' funds.
2. Lead offence and concurrent approach: The sentencing judge treated the largest offending count (count 10) as the lead offence and passed concurrent sentences for the other counts.
3. Choice of guideline: Recognising no offence-specific guideline for s.206 offences, the judge accepted the Crown's proposal to apply the fraud and false accounting guideline (R v Singh) as analogous, noting differences in maximum sentences but observing that false accounting also has a seven-year maximum.
4. Culpability and harm assessment: The judge rejected a low-to-medium culpability rating and found high culpability, given the duration of the conduct and the number of creditors put at risk. Harm was placed in category 2 (risk of loss rather than actual loss), with the case falling within category A2 of the guideline (starting point 4 years, range 2.5–5 years).
5. Aggression and mitigation adjustments: The judge identified specific aggravating features (continuing as a director after bankruptcy without leave, using a prohibited company name, and deficient company records), which justified upward adjustment from the starting point. Considerable mitigation (notably full repayment, previous good character, health and caring responsibilities, delay and some credit for guilty pleas) justified substantial reductions from the notional trial sentence. The judge concluded that, absent plea and mitigation, a sentence around five years would have been appropriate; repayment reduced this to three and a half years, further mitigation reduced it to two and a half years, and the judge applied a further approximately five per cent reduction for the guilty plea to reach 28 months.
6. Immediate custody and deterrence: The judge concluded that the length of sentence precluded suspension and, even if further reduction were possible, would not have suspended because the offending required a deterrent impact and only immediate custody could be justified.
7. Review of renewed challenge: On renewal, Attorney Benson argued that the judge had under-weighted mitigation and the plea discount. The reviewing court observed that Attorney Benson did not contend the judge was wrong to be guided by category A2 nor identify any mitigating matter omitted from consideration. The court noted the final total sentence was at the lowest point of category A2 before plea discount and that the judge applied the correct guideline and an appropriate plea discount (slightly more than five per cent). The court found the sentencing approach to be faultless and agreed that immediate custody was justified for the offending described.

Holding and Implications

RENEWED APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL REFUSED

Implications:

• The Appellant's renewed application for leave to appeal the total sentence of 28 months' imprisonment was refused; the sentence stands as imposed by the sentencing judge.
• The disqualification from being a company director (15 years) was not challenged and remains in effect.
• No new legal precedent was established by this decision; the court endorsed the sentencing judge's application of the analogous fraud and false accounting guideline and his assessment of aggravating and mitigating features in the particular factual context.