Krushnakant, R v

Krushnakant, R v

The sentence imposed was within the applicable guidelines, reflected the applicant's role, and the consecutive sentence for money laundering was justified. The totality principle was considered and the overall sentence was not excessive.

Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Applicant: Dipeshkumar Krushnakant
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence refused
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Money Laundering, Sentencing, Appeal Against Sentence
Criminal Law Conspiracy to Defraud Money Laundering Sentencing Appeal Against Sentence

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Dipeshkumar Krushnakant

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Renewed Application for Permission to Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence imposed for conspiracy to defraud and money laundering was excessive given the applicant's role and character
  2. 2 Whether the sentences for the two counts should have been concurrent rather than consecutive

Ratio Decidendi

The sentence imposed was within the applicable guidelines, reflected the applicant's role, and the consecutive sentence for money laundering was justified. The totality principle was considered and the overall sentence was not excessive.

Court Disposition

renewed application for permission to appeal against sentence refused