R v N A & OTHERS
D was charged with others for conspiracy for robbery of a diamond bespoke Franck Muller belonging to the professional boxer Amir Khan. From the onset there was a media frenzy surrounding the case and various CCTV images/footage of the incident was put on the public domain. D was purported to be ‘spotter’ to the perpetrators with telephone evidence showing co-location pre, immediate and post robbery with co-conspirators.
Defence were able to convince the jury that D had no relation with the co-conspirators and did not plan or orchestrate the robbery. Defence further managed to exclude telephone evidence at trial. D was found not guilty after trial.
Two men cleared of being ‘spotters’ in Amir Khan gunpoint robbery of diamond watch | ITV News London
Amir Khan: Two men not guilty of spotting in robbery – BBC News
R v D, W and P (Portsmouth Crown Court)
This was an investigation (Operation Miching) conducted by the South East Regional Organised Crime Unit (SEROCU) into the large scale production and distribution of counterfeit “Xanax” (Alprazolam – Class C) to both the UK Domestic and International market being sold via market places upon the “Darknet” and “Clearnet” between 2014 and 2017.
It is alleged that through these sales platforms the conspirators have amassed profits into the millions of pounds. Payments are accepted in various forms, the most prominent being the Cryptocurrency “Bitcoin”. From there the bitcoin is realised into FIAT currency through Bitcoin exchange sites such as “Local Bitcoins” and deposited via a number of methods including “Cash in Post”, bank transfers and in exchange for the payment of goods.
It is alleged the conspiracy involved the production of 6,867,600 counterfeit Alprazolam tablets and responsible for the supply of Alprazolam and other controlled drugs with a combined street value of £21,531,024. Counterfeit “Xanax” £20,603,000 other controlled drugs of Class B and C £928,024.
We represented three defendants out of five.
Media reports
Drug gang made more than £20m selling fake ‘Xanax’ to fund lavish lifestyle | ITV News Meridian
R v K S
The Defendant was arrested as part of operation Salem an investigation by the North East Regional Special Operations Unit into courier fraud offences being carried out by suspects in India and London.
He was charged with conspiracy to commit fraud and money laundering offences. The Defendant denied the allegations, his defence was prepared using some of his own mobile phone location data retrieved by the defence team to prove he was not at key locations at relevant times whilst the fraud was taking place.
The Defendant was acquitted of the conspiracy but convicted of the money laundering charge, he was the only defendant to receive a non-custodial sentence.
London men convicted of courier fraud at Newcastle Crown Court (ukdaily.news)
R v Q A
Operation FERRARI is an investigation led by the Serious and Organised Crime Unit. The operation centres around an organised crime group who are involved in the Supply of Class A and B drugs and linked Money Laundering offences. The investigation stems around a drugs line and its resurrection after Police enforcement in 2020. Op FERRARI focuses on the drugs line being re-established and built up with a large customer base.
From the end of October 2021 to December 2022 through analysis of telephone numbers identified to be the drugs line show bulk messages sent to customers on regular occasions throughout this period. It has been estimated that the drugs line is very lucrative and in a 42 week period beginning on the 04/10/2021 and ending on the 18/07/2022 there were a minimum of 12,904 purchases made through a mobile number attributed to the drugs line. In a 28 week period beginning on the 06/06/2022 and ending on the 12/12/2022 there were a minimum of 9873 purchases through the second drugs line. This alleges a very successful criminal enterprise amounting to significant quantities of cash for the organised crime group. It is alleged that from this evidence as well as previous stops relating to this investigation using a lowest estimate basis, the value of these messages is around £600,000 however could well exceed £750,000 within a 14 month period.
R v A A
This case concerns a criminal scheme by which several directors of a film production company are alleged to have cheated the revenue out of over £13 million in value added tax. The case currently has 10 defendants and there are currently 3 counts on the Indictment concerning our client(s), namely:
- CONSPIRACY TO CHEAT THE PUBLIC REVENUE, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977.
- CONCEALING / DISGUISING / CONVERTING / TRANSFERRING CRIMINAL PROPERTY, contrary to section 327 (1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
- FRAUDULENT EVASION OF INCOME TAX, contrary to section 106A of the Taxes Management Act 1970.
The investigation which uncovered this scheme alleges to identify a vast network of fictitious companies. This network is alleged to provide a service by which false invoices were raised and the money used to pay them was recycled both through bank accounts managed by the network and by third parties who lent their services to the scheme, enabling the money to be returned to the film production company, minus a fee. The effect was to launder the proceeds of the crime on a massive scale. The criminal scheme can be summarised as follows: VAT is raised on false invoices to companies which are paid into accounts controlled by the network. The network takes its cut and sends the balance back to companies through intermediaries, who also take their cut.
R v D
This was a proactive operation to target members of The E9ers Gang, based in the London Borough of Hackney involving members of the The E9ers Gang, a recognised organised criminal network (OCN), who profit from the sale of Class A drugs, not just in Hackney and the counties.
In November 2018, Trident officers began investigating a local Class A drugs line known as the ‘Bruce’ Line. Individuals were identified as running the ‘Bruce’ Line.. This led to identifying numerous co-conspirators with telephone numbers and vehicles relating to them:
This case involved a substantial amount of mobile telephone attribution to tie all the suspects together in the conspiracy. We were required to carry out extensive examination of the phone records to take the client’s instructions as to his contact with the co-defendants who he stated were social acquaintances.
Our client was acquitted on re-trial
R v F T
Our client was charged with obstructing a police officer and possession of an offensive weapon, he was identified by a witness as being the male who threw the offensive weapon away when police were present, he denied the allegation, his fingerprint was found to be on the offensive weapon, his instructions were that he had handled the bladed article in the days prior to his arrest, he recognised it as being one from his home, however he denied being in possession of the offensive weapon on the date alleged.
Fingerprint experts were instructed to examine the print-marks, this led to disclosure that the evidenced that the crown’s fingerprint examiners were divided as to whether the mark properly identified our client.
An application by the Crown to exclude the fingerprint evidence was not successful, our client was subsequently acquitted of both charges.
R v P S & J M
The Defendants were charged on an indictment containing a single count of CONSPIRACY TO CONVERT CRIMINAL PROPERTY, contrary to section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The defendants conspired with 10 others to convert criminal property, namely cash, which was the proceeds of criminal conduct from illicit smuggling and sale of alcohol from the continent in contravention of section 327(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Companies and individuals were involved in the smuggling of commercial quantities of alcohol into the UK from the continent generating large quantities of off-record cash, which the conspirators laundered into the legitimate banking system through the creation of a number of shell companies and then mixed into the business legitimately trading business.
Our defendants were alleged to be essential enablers for the Organisers, holding key regulatory roles of ‘Money Laundering Reporting Officer’ and booking keeping. Total money laundered through 14 shell companies being in excess of £30 million.
The case included voluminous evidence – over 50,000 pages, 307 separate witnesses and 17 linked HMRC Investigations and/or prosecutions.
We represented the only defendant holding a Regulated Role (Money Laundering Reporting Officer).
Not Guilty Pleas. Cracked Trial
R v A O
D was charged with Rape x 2, Assault by Penetration and Inciting Sexual Activity with a Child by a Person in Position of Trust. At his first appearance bail was refused and he was remanded in custody.
D was employed in a care home working with vulnerable young people. The Complainant alleged that D raped her one late evening, and digital penetrated her with her finger.
D accepted having intercourse with the C, but maintained throughout that it was consensual. Over 1500 pages of Unused Material was disclosed, which was critical to the case. Upon detailed analyses of the material, it appeared C had made 2 previous allegations of similar rape against other care workers, and further lied about being assaulted by another care worker.
Based on these disclosures, defence submitted bad character application against C to use at cross examination via s28 Hearing. At s.28 cross examination C gave contradictory evidence to the unused material, which formed critical to the success of the case.
At trial D was found NOT GUILTY of Rape and Assault by Penetration. However, D entered guilty plea to sexual activity with a child by a person in position of trust in earlier proceedings. D received 316 days custody time served and also received a Sexual Harm Prevention Order.
R v K A
The client was charged with using violence to secure entry and assault by beating – where it was alleged that he attended the home address of the male that his wife was having an affair with. During which, he confronted the male and forced his way into his house, assaulting his elderly mother by punching her to the head.
The Trial commenced in August 2021, and the client was acquitted on both charges.
R v A A H
This is a case of Conspiracy to Supply Heroin and Crack Cocaine and associated money laundering offences with 14 co-defendants. The evidential material for this conspiracy stems primarily from communications data from a phone belonging to the lead conspirator and relate to him conspiring to sell drugs on a multi-kilogram scale to others.
Having made extensive and lengthy written representations, the Crown then confirmed they will OFFER NO EVIDENCE to the above count.
R v M A
Teeside Crown Court – Operation Mint – Representing a Defendant charged with 15 others in a conspiracy to supply Cannabis, (other defendants were charged with supplying Cocaine in an organised crime network operating from London to Liverpool and the Cleveland area of Teeside, this case followed the initial arrest of a defendant in 2016, charges were not laid until 2020.
This case involved over 30,000 pages of mobile phone evidence which had been used to identify the defendants and their role in the conspiracy, the mobile phone records in turn produced numerous cell site and call schedules. There was also substantial use of ANPR evidence used to identify the various defendants’ movements and contact with each other including evidence of our client’s travel from London and Liverpool involving 5 trips to and from Liverpool within a period of 2 weeks.
The primary evidence against the client was numerous fingerprints found on a package containing a kilo of Cannabis. The client’s instructions were that he had touched the package to take out some cannabis for his personal use whilst he was in a co-defendant’s friend’s flat, he states he was not aware of the conspiracy to supply cocaine his associates were charged with.
The work carried out to assist the client involved innovative enquiries in relation to fingerprint experts, we made enquiries as to whether a fingerprint expert could place the pattern of fingerprints found on the packaging and determine whether they were made by someone extracting cannabis from the packaging as opposed to someone responsible for packaging the drugs, enquiries showed that the experts were not able to determine this from their examination.
The trial commenced in April 2021, concluding in July 2021, the sentences were handed down in October 2021.
R v S E
Represented a defendant accused of obstructing a drug search pursuant to section 23 of the Misuse of Drugs Act. Body worn footage revealed the defendant not adhering to police requests and using force against officers to prevent search of his person. This was a tricky matter as most cases of obstruction in the Magistrates Court usually end in conviction, especially with clear footage. The defendant was aware of this as he had a previous conviction of obstruction in similar circumstances so elected Crown Court.
The Crown Prosecution Service wanted to avoid the matter going up to Crown Court, so withdrew the original charge of obstructing a drugs search under section 23, and amended it to a summary only offence, namely Obstructing a police officer in the exercise of his duty, to ensure that he couldn’t elect.
Representations were made to the CPS to discontinue the case, on the grounds that there was a clear abuse of process preventing the client from electing Trial venue. What’s more, body worn footage of the officer’s initial interaction with the defendant was absent from all the footage served, including the unused material.
It was further put to the CPS that the attending officers had failed to comply with the search requirements of PACE and that all subsequent actions pertaining to the defendant’s arrest would have been outside of the scope of their duty.
The case was discontinued.
R v M U
This case involved three defendants, out of which we represented one defendant. Our defendant was alleged to be the senior of the three men in the operation. The police stopped the Defendants and searched vehicles they were travelling in and addresses associated with them. Within hours of stopping them the police seized £750,638.36 in cash. The allegation against them was that they agreed together to transfer cash, and that when they agreed to transfer cash they knew it had been generated by criminal activity. The Crowns case was that they were working together to launder dirty money.
Not only did the Crown rely on the circumstances of their arrest and the amount of cash found but the Crown also relied upon a series of messages sent between the three men and others on encrypted phones. The overwhelming inference from those messages is that over a period of they were, with others unknown, involved in laundering over £3 million.
R v J A
This is a case involving 21 defendants. It is alleged that the conspiracy was lead and driven by one male (the first defendant). The first defendant acquired/rented a residential property for the sole purpose of preparing, distributing and supplying controlled Class A, B and C drugs. It is alleged that the first defendant conspired with a group of individuals to supply controlled drugs; all over London and surrounding Home Counties. The case included voluminous witness evidence, and phone evidence including attribution, calls, text messages and cell site evidence.
R V M Z M
(Operation Minesota) The client was a defendant involved in a multi-handed fraud committed against his employer Metro Bank. He was charged with one count of Conspiracy to Defraud, it was alleged he had transferred £613,256.38 from a customer’s bank account. He subsequently pleaded guilty to the charge against him.
Confiscation proceedings commenced, the sole asset held by the client was the family home, this was registered to him and his sister, each holding a beneficial interest, the client’s instructions were that though the property legally belonged to him in fact he and his sister were effectively holding it on trust for their parents.
The benefit figure was £613, 256.38, the Crown sought a confiscation order to the value of £228,000, (the value of the equity available in the family home), they later conceded they should seek half this value, we were able to agree a confiscation order to the value of £62,773.40.
R v Y M
(Operation Cyclamen) This was a case involving 12 defendants, out of whom we represented one defendant. In a nutshell this case relates to the kidnap and false imprisonment of the Victim. After he was kidnapped, he was taken to a variety of locations in London before being taken to Nottingham where he was eventually held in a hotel. At that hotel he was able to alert staff and the police were called thereby ending his false imprisonment. It was alleged that our client organised the initial meeting with the victim and other defendants. It was our team’s role to show that the victim and our defendant were friends and known to each other. Our client was not aware and had no knowledge of the kidnapping. He was not involved in the actual kidnapping nor was he involved in any violence or movements with the victim. The case included voluminous witness evidence, phone evidence including attribution and cell site and lengthy CCTV evidence.
R v R H
The case concerns a conspiracy to supply class A drugs namely crack cocaine and heroin between the 1st September 2018 and the 1st May 2019 by an organised crime group known as ‘The Essex Boys’, who brought drugs from London into Hampshire and distributed them in the Portsmouth area. In total there were 8 defendants.
Text messages, ANPR and cell site evidence showed co-defendants travelling to London and meeting with our client to collect the drugs. Our client also travelled into Hampshire to make exchanges. The Conspiracy was led by a co-defendant from prison who was serving life imprisonment, our client was alleged to be his trusted lieutenant outside.
Cash seized during arrest of co-defendant was £74,571.87 and drugs seized had estimated street value of £270,670.
Our client was referred to as ‘P’ and was allegedly the facilitator and London supplier for the conspiracy. ANPR, cell site evidence and phone traffic demonstrate other conspirators visiting him in London to collect the drugs and on other dates him making journeys to Hampshire in his own car and meeting other members of the conspiracy make the exchange. Our client was always in frequent contact with the lead conspirator at relevant times.
Our client was attributed with 13 different mobile numbers during his conspiracy period.
The Crown served over 10,000 pages of evidence. We had to go through large amounts of cell site and ANPR evidence and explain the reason why contact was made by our client to the lead conspirator and other co-defendants after every ‘drug exchange’, we further had to explain the journey to/from Hampshire to London.