Rogers & Ors, R v

Rogers & Ors, R v

The amendment of the indictment was proper and caused no injustice; English courts had jurisdiction over the money laundering offence as substantial criminal activity and harm occurred in the UK and POCA 2002 provides extra-territorial reach; the substantive count was not subsumed by the conspiracy counts; the judge's summing up did not misdirect the jury; and the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive or disparate given the scale and roles in the fraud.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Bradley David Rogers; Applicant: Colin Martin Samuels; Applicant: Geraldine French; Applicant: Mark Julian Bell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeals and applications dismissed; permission to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Money Laundering, Jurisdiction, Amendment of Indictment, Sentencing
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Defraud Money Laundering Jurisdiction Amendment of Indictment Sentencing

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Bradley David Rogers

Appellant

Colin Martin Samuels

Applicant

Geraldine French

Applicant

Mark Julian Bell

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amendment of indictment after close of prosecution case was proper
  2. 2 Whether English courts had jurisdiction over money laundering acts committed abroad
  3. 3 Whether acts alleged in amended count were subsumed by conspiracy counts

Ratio Decidendi

The amendment of the indictment was proper and caused no injustice; English courts had jurisdiction over the money laundering offence as substantial criminal activity and harm occurred in the UK and POCA 2002 provides extra-territorial reach; the substantive count was not subsumed by the conspiracy counts; the judge's summing up did not misdirect the jury; and the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive or disparate given the scale and roles in the fraud.

Court Disposition

Appeals and applications dismissed; permission to appeal refused.