Money laundering offences no substitute for predicate charge

Tom Wise, ex-MEP for the UK Independence Party, jailed for two years in November for expenses fraud, has some claim to gratitude from future defendants in money laundering cases. The Crown had sought to charge him not only with false accounting but also with using criminal property. Jonathan Fisher QC, defending, argued for dismissal of this second charge on the grounds that it would merely serve to complicate the case for the jury, which required the prosecution to prove the offence of false accounting. The predicate offence, he said, was a matter of factual evidence, which it would anyway be necessary to prove in order to show use of criminal property, that is, money laundering. If the prosecution was unable to prove the predicate, there could be no criminal property so rendering the second count pointless. Judge Geoffrey Rivlin QC agreed with this reasoning; the money laundering charge would only “obscure the Crown’s pure case” against Wise, which was one of “unvarnished dishonesty”. He said that if Wise were found guilty on the first count, the money laundering charge “could add nothing to his criminality” and a conviction could not add to his sentence; an acquittal on the false accounting charge but conviction for using criminal property would be “perverse”. Interestingly, the money laundering offence was punishable by a maximum of 14 years imprisonment, whereas the maximum term for false accounting is seven years. Although the money laundering legislation is drafted sufficiently widely to embrace the activities of the predicate criminal holding the proceeds of his crime, prosecutors should take note that a senior Crown Court Judge was willing to call a halt to the addition of a money laundering charge where the defendant was doing no more than enjoying the fruits of his crime.