Money Laundering Under Proceeds Of Crime Act
🔍 What Is Money Laundering?
Money laundering is the process of disguising the origin of illegally obtained money, typically by passing it through complex transactions to make it appear legitimate. The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) is the main legislation in the UK that governs money laundering.
⚖️ Key Offences Under POCA 2002
POCA defines three main types of money laundering offences under Part 7:
🔹 Section 327 – Concealing, disguising, converting, transferring, or removing criminal property
Involves actively dealing with the proceeds of crime.
🔹 Section 328 – Entering into or becoming concerned in arrangements to facilitate the acquisition, retention, use, or control of criminal property
Covers those who help or assist others to launder money.
🔹 Section 329 – Acquisition, use, or possession of criminal property
Targets individuals who possess or use criminal proceeds, knowingly or with suspicion.
Additionally:
Section 330 – Failure by certain professionals (e.g. accountants, solicitors) to report suspicions.
Section 340 – Defines “criminal property” as any property that constitutes or represents a benefit from criminal conduct, known or suspected to be such.
✅ Key Elements for Prosecution
To convict under POCA, the prosecution must prove:
The property is criminal property.
The defendant knew or suspected that the property was criminal in nature.
The defendant carried out an act that falls within one of the relevant sections.
⚖️ Important UK Case Law on Money Laundering
1. R v. Anwoir [2008] EWCA Crim 1354
Facts: The defendants were caught with large sums of cash believed to be proceeds of drug trafficking. They claimed they did not know the origin of the money.
Issue: Whether the money constituted criminal property without proving the specific predicate offence.
Held: The court held that criminal property can be proven either:
By showing a specific criminal conduct, or
By inferring from the circumstances that the property must have come from crime.
Significance:
Set the principle that direct proof of underlying crime is not required.
Widely used to convict in money laundering where source is unknown but clearly illicit.
2. R v. Geary [2011] EWCA Crim 2074
Facts: Geary received money in her bank account from a known fraudster and transferred it abroad.
Issue: Whether knowledge or suspicion of the money’s origin was sufficient for liability under s327.
Held: The court ruled that even suspicion was enough for the money laundering offence.
Significance:
Highlighted the low threshold for suspicion.
Reinforced that wilful blindness will not protect someone from liability.
3. R v. Fazal [2011] EWCA Crim 2634
Facts: A solicitor facilitated property transactions where funds used were later found to be proceeds of crime.
Issue: Whether he could be guilty under Section 328 for entering into arrangements facilitating money laundering.
Held: Yes. The solicitor knew or suspected the funds came from illegal activity and still proceeded.
Significance:
Reinforced that professionals have a duty to report and not facilitate suspicious transactions.
Clarified application of Section 328.
4. R v. GH [2015] UKSC 24
Facts: GH transferred money into his account without knowing it was stolen but suspected it might be suspicious.
Issue: Whether possession or use of criminal property without full knowledge was sufficient for liability under Section 329.
Held: The Supreme Court clarified that knowledge or suspicion is required—not mere negligence or naivety.
Significance:
Provided clarification on mental element of s329.
Affirmed that actual or suspected knowledge of criminal property is essential.
5. R v. Saik [2006] UKHL 18
Facts: Saik operated a bureau de change and was charged with laundering criminal proceeds through currency exchange.
Issue: Whether he could be convicted of money laundering based on suspicion alone.
Held: The House of Lords held that actual knowledge (not mere suspicion) was needed for conspiracy to launder.
Significance:
Differentiated between levels of mens rea in conspiracy vs actual laundering.
Important for serious organised crime cases involving international transfers.
6. R v. Uddin [2009] EWCA Crim 1831
Facts: Uddin held a large sum of unexplained cash in a shoebox and gave implausible explanations for it.
Issue: Whether the inference could be made that the money was from criminal conduct.
Held: The court confirmed that inference from circumstances (e.g., hiding cash, lack of plausible source) was enough.
Significance:
Supports use of circumstantial evidence to prove criminal property.
Frequently cited in cash seizure and forfeiture cases.
📊 Summary Table of Key Cases
| Case | Legal Issue | Key Legal Point Established |
|---|---|---|
| R v. Anwoir (2008) | Proof of criminal origin | Inference from circumstances can prove criminal property. |
| R v. Geary (2011) | Suspicion vs knowledge | Suspicion is sufficient for criminal liability. |
| R v. Fazal (2011) | Professional arrangements (Section 328) | Professionals must not assist in suspicious transactions. |
| R v. GH (2015) | Mens rea for possession | Actual or suspected knowledge of criminal origin required. |
| R v. Saik (2006) | Conspiracy and intent | Conspiracy requires actual knowledge, not suspicion alone. |
| R v. Uddin (2009) | Unexplained cash | Circumstantial evidence can establish criminal origin. |
🧠 Key Legal Concepts in Money Laundering
Criminal Property: Any property (money or assets) derived from criminal conduct.
Knowledge/Suspicion: The defendant must know or suspect the property is criminal.
Professionals’ Duties: Lawyers, accountants, and bankers have additional responsibilities under POCA.
Tipping Off (Section 333A): It's an offence to alert someone that they are under suspicion if it might prejudice an investigation.
🔐 Penalties for Money Laundering
Maximum penalty for offences under sections 327, 328, and 329 is 14 years’ imprisonment, an unlimited fine, or both.
Courts may also impose confiscation orders under POCA to recover the criminal benefit.
🏁 Conclusion
Money laundering offences under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 are a cornerstone of the UK's fight against organized crime, fraud, and financial corruption. Courts have interpreted the law broadly, allowing convictions based on:
Circumstantial evidence
Suspicion
Inferences drawn from behaviour or financial transactions
Case law such as Anwoir, GH, and Fazal has shaped the application of POCA to ensure that those knowingly or recklessly handling criminal property are held accountable.
RELATED Blog
0 comments