“Comprehensive investigation” clears socialite of money laundering
Following a five-month trial at Leeds Crown Court, socialite James Stunt, former son-in-law of Formula 1 tycoon Bernie Ecclestone, was found not guilty of allowing his office to be used as a money laundering hub – the only one of the five defendants to be cleared.
Money laundering in excess of £200 million made this one of the highest profile and largest trials ever held for the offence and by the end of it, James Stunt was exonerated by the jury and cleared of all charges, with the Judge making a Defendant’s Cost Order in his favour at the conclusion of the case.
However, the four other men, Gregory Frankel, Daniel Rawson, Arjun Babber and Haroon Rashid were convicted of the crime and sentenced to between 10 years and 11 years and eight months, although Rawson, who was sentenced to 10 years and 10 months, was the only one in court to hear the verdict, as the other three are believed to have fled the country.
The prosecution said that between 2014 and 2016, couriers delivered cash from across the country to Bradford gold dealer Fowler Oldfield, owned by Frankel and Rawson; to Mr Stunt’s business premises in London; and to a company called Pure Nines Limited in Hatton Garden.
They alleged that the network of men laundered £200 million in criminal proceeds through a company bank account over the two years and used the proceeds to buy untraceable gold, which was then shipped to Dubai. However, Mr Stunt claimed that he never suspected he was “entering into a criminal agreement” when he partnered with Frankel and Rawson.
Speaking after the verdicts were announced, Mr Stunt’s barrister said that he had “bravely and with fortitude endured a long and traumatic ordeal. She added that he had steadfastly proclaimed his innocence over the many years.
Commenting on the case, Roger Isaacs, National Technical Director of NIFA, said “This case underscores the complexities forensic accountants face in large-scale money laundering investigations. Tracing funds, analysing transactions and identifying financial irregularities are critical to distinguishing legitimate operations from illicit activities.
“In this instance, Mr. Stunt was not only exonerated but the fact that he obtained a Defendant’s Cost Order suggests that the court considered that prosecution may have acted unreasonably by relying on weak or flawed evidence or by pursuing a case without a reasonable prospect of conviction.”
Source: BBC News
Share on Twitter
