R v Ndayishimye Shabani
[2024] EWCA Crim 553
R v Tathagata Mandal
31 July 2024
[2024] EWCA Crim 1194
Court of Appeal
A man was jailed for money laundering. The appeal court reduced his sentence slightly because the judge didn't give enough weight to how little money he actually handled and other good things about him. But they kept him in jail because what he did was pretty serious.
Key Facts
- •Tathagata Mandal (appellant) appealed his two-year imprisonment sentence for seven counts of money laundering.
- •The offences involved receiving money from victims of a sophisticated bank fraud targeting elderly and vulnerable individuals.
- •Mandal received a percentage of the laundered money (15-20%) and forwarded the rest internationally.
- •The total laundered amount was £20,350.
- •The offences occurred over a seven-month period, involving seven victims.
- •Mandal pleaded guilty.
- •The Recorder sentenced Mandal using offence 1 as the lead offence, with concurrent sentences for the others.
Legal Principles
Money Laundering Sentencing Guideline, Category B5.
Money Laundering Sentencing Guideline
Assessment of harm in money laundering cases considers both monetary value (harm A) and harm associated with the underlying offence (harm B).
Money Laundering Sentencing Guideline
Sentencing should reflect harm A (monetary value) and harm B (harm from the underlying offence) appropriately.
Implicit in the judgment's analysis of the Recorder's sentencing
The decision to suspend a sentence should be considered in light of the seriousness of the offence and the defendant's personal mitigation, with reference to the Guideline on the Imposition of Community and Custodial Sentences.
R v Ali [2023] EWCA Crim 232 and the judgment's discussion of the Recorder's reasoning
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed in part.
The original sentence failed to adequately account for the lower monetary value of the laundered money (harm A) and the significant personal mitigation presented. The court considered that the sentence should have been lower to reflect these factors.
The sentence for offence 1 was reduced from 24 months to 20 months.
This reduction reflects the court's finding that the original sentence did not appropriately balance harm A and B, and the mitigating circumstances.
The decision not to suspend the sentence was upheld.
The court deemed the seriousness of the offences, their repeated nature, and the vulnerability of the victims justified the immediate custodial sentence.