The Attorney General v Russell Stephen King

Superior Number Sentencing - Fraudulent conversion [2019]JRC067A Royal Court (Samedi) 23 April 2019 Before : J. A. Clyde-Smith, Commissioner, and Jurats Blampied, Thomas, Pitman, Christensen and Averty The Attorney General -v- Russell Stephen King Sentencing by the Superior Number of the Royal Court, to which the accused was remanded by the Inferior Number on 22nd January, 2019, following guilty pleas to the following charges: 5 counts of: Fraudulent conversion (Counts 20, 21, 22, 24 and 25) Age: 60. Plea: Guilty. Details of Offence: King was a shadow director of Belgravia Financial Services Group Ltd, (‘BFSG’), a Jersey incorporated umbrella company for a number of financial services companies which he ran with his business partner Duncan Hickman. In summer 2008 King took advantage of the untimely death of Duncan Hickman to fraudulently convert a total of £671,213 from BFSG’s bank accounts which he transferred overseas, including to a Swiss-based family trust structure and to Bahrain, for his personal benefit. He did so notwithstanding BFSG’s already financially parlous condition. In addition, and over the same period, he assumed responsibility for selling and realising the net sale proceeds of Duncan Hickman’s cherished car registration numbers, for which he had a duty to account for to the executor of Hickman’s estate. Instead King misappropriated some £68,934 for his own

benefit. In total therefore, and in the space of 3 months, King – in breach of trust – fraudulently converted £740,286 for his personal benefit. BFSG went into liquidation not long afterwards and was able to repay its unsecured creditors only 4.2p for every pound they were owed – that figure would have been 46p for every pound owed but for King’s offending. Soon after committing the offences King left Jersey for Bahrain and remained there until he was successfully extradited back to Jersey in July 2018. Details of Mitigation: Guilty pleas 18 months of what the Prosecution accepted was its own unreasonable delay in bringing the case before the Court, which the Crown concluded served to reduce its conclusion of 6 years’ imprisonment overall to five and a half years’ imprisonment overall. Previous Convictions: One previous conviction for attempting to obtain property by deception dating back to the early 1990s. Conclusions: Count 20: 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Count 21: 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Count 22: 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, concurrent. Count 24: 3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent. Count 25: 3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent. Total: 5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment. Confiscation order postponed for further directions. Sentence and Observations of Court: Count 20: 6 years’ imprisonment. Count 21: 6 years’ imprisonment,

concurrent. Count 22: 6 years’ imprisonment, concurrent. Count 24: 3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent. Count 25: 3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent. Total: 6 years’ imprisonment. Disqualification order made under Article 78 of the Companies (Jersey) Law, 1991 for a period of 10 years from today that the defendant shall not without leave of the Court:- (a) be a director of or in any way whether directly or indirectly be concerned or take part in the management of a company; or (b) be a member of the council of a foundation incorporated under the Foundations (Jersey) Law, 2009, or in any other way directly or indirectly be concerned or take part in the management of such a foundation; or (c) in Jersey in any way whether directly or indirectly be concerned or take part in the management of a body incorporated outside Jersey. M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate. Advocate A. M. Harrison for the Defendant.

JUDGMENT THE COMMISSIONER: 1. The Court is going to give its reasons in a written judgment which will follow shortly but we agree that these are very serious offences motivated entirely by greed and were quite gratuitous in their nature.

2. You are sentenced as follows; on Counts 20, 21 and 22 to 6 years’ imprisonment on each, to run currently. On Counts 24 and 25; to 3 years’ imprisonment on each concurrently with each other and concurrently with the sentences on Counts 20 and 22, making a total of 6 years’ imprisonment in all.

3. We disqualify the defendant under Article 78 of the Companies (Jersey) Law, 1991 for a period of 10 years from today’s date. Authorities Companies (Jersey) Law, 1991