Money Laundering

The danger of relying on expert evidence in criminal trials

Jim Sturman QC is a leading criminal barrister; in this video he comments to BBC1's Panorama on the dangers presented by some expert witnesses in criminal trial.

R. v. P

Appeared for Defence. Money laundering trial arising out of massive cocaine importation.

R. v. V

Appeared for Defence. £60,000,000 money laundering charges arising out of L.C.B. diversion fraud. Conviction quashed as a result of the non-disclosure by HMRC of a participating informant.

R. v. S

Appeared for Defence. Alleged money laundering for "crime syndicate."

R. v. Q

Appeared for Defence. £12,000,000 money laundering trial arising out of an investigation into an allegedly "bogus" bureau de change.

HMRC v. X

Jim recently acted for X in a 3 day inter-partes application to oppose a Restraint Order HMRC was seeking against the assets of an individual. HMRC's application was rejected.

R v. W and others

Search warrants granted to HMRC were quashed by the Divisional Court on the basis that the informations did not disclose "reasonable grounds" to justify the warrants granted by the Crown Court.

Money Laundering and the Proceeds of Crime

Jim is a leading barrister in the field of money laundering and the proceeds of crime, and he is often engaged to act for those who find themselves the subject of a restraint order or confiscation proceedings. Most recently Jim acted for one of the successful applicants in challenges to restraint orders and search warrants [...]