Ramzan & Ors, R v [2006] EWCA Crim 1974 (21 July 2006)

Ramzan & Ors, R v [2006] EWCA Crim 1974 (21 July 2006)

Convictions for conspiracy to launder money based on suspicion alone are unsafe following R v Saik, as the correct mens rea is intention or knowledge. Directions to the jury that suspicion sufficed were misdirections. However, leave to appeal out of time is only granted where substantial injustice would otherwise occur. Substitution for substantive offences is not appropriate where the specific offences cannot be identified from the jury's verdicts in cases of repetitive transactions.

Citation
[2006] EWCA Crim 1974
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Amer Ramzan; Appellant/defendant: Faisal Jamil Malik; Appellant/defendant: Claire O'Brien; Appellant/defendant: James Carr; Appellant/defendant: Imran Syed; Appellant/defendant: Abraham Israel; Appellant/defendant: Abolghasem Vakilipour; Respondent/prosecution: Regina (The Crown)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals and Applications Against Convictions for Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering
Outcome
Convictions for conspiracy quashed; retrial ordered for Ramzan; leave to appeal out of time generally refused absent substantial injustice; substitution for substantive offences refused.
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, Conspiracy, Mens Rea, Appeals, Substitution of Convictions, Extension of Time, Proceeds of Crime
Criminal Law Money Laundering Conspiracy Mens Rea Appeals Substitution of Convictions Extension of Time Proceeds of Crime

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amer Ramzan

Appellant/defendant

Faisal Jamil Malik

Appellant/defendant

Claire O'Brien

Appellant/defendant

James Carr

Appellant/defendant

Imran Syed

Appellant/defendant

Abraham Israel

Appellant/defendant

Abolghasem Vakilipour

Appellant/defendant

Regina (The Crown)

Respondent/prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals and Applications Against Convictions for Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proof of suspicion is sufficient mens rea for conspiracy to launder money after R v Saik
  2. 2 Whether convictions are safe where jury was directed that suspicion sufficed
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted after a change in law

Ratio Decidendi

Convictions for conspiracy to launder money based on suspicion alone are unsafe following R v Saik, as the correct mens rea is intention or knowledge. Directions to the jury that suspicion sufficed were misdirections. However, leave to appeal out of time is only granted where substantial injustice would otherwise occur. Substitution for substantive offences is not appropriate where the specific offences cannot be identified from the jury's verdicts in cases of repetitive transactions.

Court Disposition

Convictions for conspiracy quashed; retrial ordered for Ramzan; leave to appeal out of time generally refused absent substantial injustice; substitution for substantive offences refused.

Orders

  • Conviction of Amer Ramzan quashed; retrial ordered at Leeds Crown Court within two months unless otherwise ordered; Ramzan to remain in custody.
  • Convictions for conspiracy to launder money quashed for all appellants; no substitution for substantive offences.