Yoonus, R v

The appellant, Naushad Yoonus is 31 years of age. He was of previous good character. He pleaded guilty on re-arraignment at the Crown Court at Kingston-upon-Thames before His Honour Judge William Thomas to two offences of conspiracy to convert the proceeds of drug trafficking and/or other criminal conduct. On 11 July 2003, he was sentenced to terms of six years' and three years' imprisonment to run concurrently. He now appeals against sentence by leave of the single judge.

The appellant was charged with conspiring with others to convert sterling, which was the proceeds of crime and called “street money”, into large denomination currencies such as dollars or Euros. A co-defendant, Lathiff, had a number of businesses in West London, including hotels, which incorporated bureaux de change. The Radnor Hotel in Bayswater was the one most frequently used. A room would be made available to the appellant, where he would receive bags of sterling. There were a number of defendants who brought money to the hotel. They would collect money from various venues, where it would be handed over and exchanged into a suitable currency.

Officers of Her Majesty's Customs and Excise kept observation on the operation. On 28 June 2002, the co-defendant, Lathiff, was seen to enter the home of a man and leave with a rucksack. That was count 1.

On 9 July 2002, the appellant was seen to go into the Radnor Hotel with a rucksack. Two of the co-defendants were present. One was arrested as he came out of the hotel. He was found to have on him US $300,000. Count 1 included all who were arrested at the hotel and another occasion in Portsmouth when the appellant had been seen dealing with various co-defendants, including one who had in his possession over US $580,000. At the homes of two of the co-defendants were found US $566,000 and $600,000.

Count 2 related to the appellant's dealings with co-defendants on two separate dates in 2002. The first was an exchange at the Radnor Hotel, and the second an exchange in a motor car.

The appellant pleaded guilty on the basis that on some of the occasions he was observed he had been carrying on legitimate business. Not all of the money recovered could be attributed to the money laundering. In relation to count 2 he pleaded guilty on the basis of two transactions with a co-defendant when he knew that the money came from crime.

Before the sentencing judge there were a number of documents: letters, references and a prison report. We have read them. Mr Sones on behalf of the appellant submits, in short, that the total sentence of six years was too long, given the extent of the money laundering that was involved; that the appellant was of previous good character; and that a sentence of imprisonment would have a considerable effect upon his family. We have read today a letter written by the appellant to this court which specifically deals with the effect of the prison sentence upon his family. In addition, Mr Sones adopts the written submissions of Mr Rees QC, that there was no certainty as to the source of the laundered money. The appellant denied that it was the proceeds of drug trafficking or other serious crime, and that was accepted by the sentencing judge. The appellant's case was that he was not the main player behind the money-laundering scheme. It was the prosecution's case against him that he allowed himself to be used to facilitate the conversion of sterling to US dollars. He did that at a respectable bureau de change. It was not a sophisticated scheme and he was in effect the labourer for others. He received very little financial benefit, compared with the amount of money involved -- probably as little as £5,000.

Mr Sones again adopting the written submissions of Mr Rees, has referred this court to R v Louis Everson and Others [2002] 1 Cr App R(S) 131 and R v Singh Basra [2002] 2 Cr App R(S) 99, in which appellants who played a similar role to that of this appellant were sentenced to three-and-a-half years' imprisonment. Relying on all of those matters Mr Sones submits that the sentence of six years' imprisonment was too long.

On the basis upon which the appellant fell to be sentenced we agree. It was not shown that the money came from serious crime. The dishonesty was part only of a legitimate commercial operation. They were the bases upon which the appellant was expressly sentenced by the learned sentencing judge. Nevertheless, the sums involved were significant.

Taking all of those matters into account, we have come to the conclusion that the sentence of six years' imprisonment was too long, particularly following a plea of guilty. One of the matters stressed by Mr Sones is that he received insufficient credit for that plea. We quash the sentence of six years' imprisonment and substitute for it one of four years. The sentences remain concurrent, making a total sentence of four years' imprisonment. To that extent this appeal is allowed.