Key Issue in R v Jonathan Porter & Anor: Proof of Criminal Property Essential for Money Laundering Convictions

Citation: [2023] EWCA Crim 1485
Judgment on

Introduction

The case of R v Jonathan Porter & Anor (EWCA-Criminal 2023, 1485) provides a noteworthy exploration into the principles surrounding money laundering offences within the context of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA). This case delves into the necessity for a predicate offence, the qualifications of cash as criminal property, and the technical elements of an indictment. The EWCA Crim 1485 decision demonstrates the legal thresholds necessary for upholding convictions for money laundering offences, emphasizing the need for clear evidence linking the cash in question to criminal conduct.

Key Facts

Jonathan Porter and Peter Stanley were convicted for entering into a monetary laundering arrangement, as proscribed by section 328(1) of POCA. The arrangement allegedly involved the laundering of funds derived from large-scale duty evasion on alcohol. Porter, as the sole director of Europlus Trading Limited (ETL), was accused of laundering money through ETL, while Stanley’s role was that of a cash courier. The Crown argued that the cash conveyed to ETL from certain cash and carries was criminal property, representing the benefits from the underlying crime of duty evasion. Both defendants challenged their convictions.

The legal principles at the core of this case revolve around the definition and evidentiary standards pertaining to ‘criminal property’ under POCA. The appellate court underscored the importance of distinguishing between proceeds directly from a sale of unlawful goods, which would not qualify as criminal property, and the criminal benefit derived from prior criminal conduct, which does.

The court expressly referenced sections 328 and 340 of POCA. Under these sections:

  • Property is ‘criminal property’ if it represents a benefit from criminal conduct—specifically conduct constituting an offence.
  • Crucially, the predicate crime must be complete, and separate from the actus reus of the money laundering offence itself—for property to be criminal.
  • The prosecution is not obliged to trace the criminal conduct to any specific individual, only to show the property’s criminal nature at the point of the money laundering arrangement.

The legal reasoning in GH [2015] UKSC 24 was pivotal in this case, bringing clarity to the requirement that cash must be criminal property before any laundering can occur. The judgment in Loizou was distinguished as the case did not involve a prior predicate offence with benefit flowing from it.

Outcomes

The applications by Jonathan Porter and Peter Stanley were unarguably dismissed. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the cash conveyed to ETL represented a benefit from the criminal conduct of alcohol duty evasion. It was moot, for this purpose, whether the physical cash had emerged directly from the sale of duty-evaded-alcohol or from other sources. What mattered legally was its connection to the benefit from the underlying crime.

Regarding the technical challenge to the indictment, it was deemed to have no merit. The court noted that the reference to the appellants in the indictment particulars was mere surplusage and wouldn’t have caused any confusion as to the charge’s substance—money laundering on behalf of the organized crime group perpetrating the duty evasion.

Conclusion

The EWCA’s determination in R v Jonathan Porter & Anor accentuates the legal intricacies of money laundering offences, crystallizing what constitutes criminal property and reinforcing the necessity for a completed predicate offence. The judgment articulately navigates through these complex legal principles, highlighting the burden on the prosecution to link the cash involved in laundering directly to past criminal conduct. The case reaffirms the principle that funds intended for the acquisition of illegal goods do not become criminal property until such a time they represent the benefit from an already committed crime. This judgment plays an instrumental role in shaping case law concerning money laundering in the United Kingdom, offering pivotal guidance to legal professionals.