Sharma, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1122 (18 July 2025)

Sharma, R. v [2025] EWCA Crim 1122 (18 July 2025)

The original indictment was deficient in failing to specify the alleged misrepresentations as required by law, but the amended indictment, though imperfect, sufficiently identified the factual basis for the prosecution case and did not cause material unfairness to the defence. The convictions were safe. The sentence, however, was pitched too high in terms of culpability and harm; a sentence of three years' imprisonment was appropriate after proper adjustment for mitigation and delay.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Crim 1122
Parties
Prosecution: Rex; Appellant/defendant: Vikas Sharma
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part
Legal Topics
Fraud, Money Laundering, Indictment Drafting, Misrepresentation, Sentencing Guidelines
Criminal Law Fraud Money Laundering Indictment Drafting Misrepresentation Sentencing Guidelines

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rex

Prosecution

Vikas Sharma

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Conviction and Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the indictment sufficiently particularised the alleged misrepresentations under the Fraud Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether the conviction was safe given the amendment of the indictment during trial
  3. 3 Whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or wrongly categorised under the sentencing guidelines

Ratio Decidendi

The original indictment was deficient in failing to specify the alleged misrepresentations as required by law, but the amended indictment, though imperfect, sufficiently identified the factual basis for the prosecution case and did not cause material unfairness to the defence. The convictions were safe. The sentence, however, was pitched too high in terms of culpability and harm; a sentence of three years' imprisonment was appropriate after proper adjustment for mitigation and delay.

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; appeal against sentence allowed in part

Orders

  • Conviction upheld on all counts
  • Sentences of four years' imprisonment quashed and substituted with sentences of three years' imprisonment concurrent on each count