Four defendants appealed convictions in money laundering cases. The first defendant operated a money exchange through which substantial volumes of cash were moved, but claimed that he believed the money to have been honestly acquired.
Held: Saik now meant that the requirement was for actual suspicion, not mere reasonable cause for suspicion. However in this case the charge was conspiracy, and if the agreement alleged led to the offence then the conspiracy was made out: ‘Where therefore such an either/or conspiracy count is charged, the Defendant must be proved to have agreed, at some stage, to launder money which he intends shall be of one or other illicit origin, or of both. It is not enough that he has agreed to launder money which he only suspects may be of illicit origin: Saik. Nor is it enough that he is prepared to take the risk that it may be of illicit origin. He must intend to launder money which is of illicit origin of one kind or the other, or both. But if he does intend to launder it whichever its illicit origin, he is still intending to launder money intended to be illicit, and he is entering an agreement to a course of conduct which will, if carried out in accordance with his intention, necessarily amount to or involve the commission of one or other or both of the two substantive offences referred to. ‘ A re-trial was ordered.
Hughes LJ, Henriques LJ, Field J
 EWCA Crim 2543
Criminal Law Act 1977 1(1)
England and Wales
Cited – Ramzan and Others, Regina v CACD 21-Jul-2006
The court considered its power on allowing an appeal after a plea of guilty to substitute a conviction for an appropriate lesser offence.
Held: Hughes LJ said that section 3A of the 1968 Act imposed a two stage test. The court considering . .
Cited – Saik, Regina v HL 3-May-2006
The defendant appealed aganst his conviction for conspiracy to engage in moneylaundering. At trial he pleaded guilty subject to a qualification that he had not known that the money was the proceeds of crime, though he may have suspected that it . .
Cited – Regina v Hussain, Regina v Bhatti, Regina v Bhatti CACD 16-Jan-2002
It was possible to have an indictment which alleged a conspiracy to commit either one of two alternative offences. A conspiracy could clearly be to commit more than one offence. The phrase in the section ‘offence or offences’ should not be construed . .
Cited – Ali, Hussain, Khan, Bhatti, Regina v CACD 7-Jun-2005
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to launder money under section 49(2) of the 1994 Act. The appellants said that the effect of the decision in Montila, alongside sections 1(1) and 1(2) of the 1997 Act, was that a . .
Cited – Attoney-General’s Reference No 4 of 2003 Under S. 36 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988; Suchedina CACD 21-Jul-2004
Conspiracy to convert or transfer the proceeds of drug trafficking or of criminal conduct – confiscation order available. The statutory distinction existed between the proceeds of drug trafficking and of crime generally had now been removed, but the . .
Cited – Regina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
Cited – Regina v Charles, Regina v Tucker CACD 20-Feb-2001
Charles had absconded on the day he was convicted of robbery shortly before the summing up. He was arrested over a year later and sentenced. He gave instructions to his solicitors to advance and renew his applications for leave to appeal conviction . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 January 2021; Ref: scu.245678