or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
Court of Appeal dismisses appeal against conviction for, inter alia, money laundering and deception, on the grounds, inter alia, that: (a) the trial judge had been correct not to sever the indictment; (b) the trial judge had been correct to admit into evidence certain telephone recordings; and (c) the trial judge had been correct to refuse the application for a direction in respect of a certain count where there was cogent evidence, in particular that the appellant had admitted all the ingredients of the offence charged, and it had been correctly left to the jury to decide whether to act on foot of the admissions.
Appeal against conviction for money laundering, deception, having custody or control of a false instrument and using a false instrument - prosecution case that appellant had represented himself using various different names and aliases as a highly qualified financier or merchant banker - appellant operated several companies with similar-sounding names to Anglo Irish Bank plc and strikingly similar logo - four different individuals - whether trial judge erred in refusing to sever indictment and distinguish between money laundering and theft offences relating to one individual, deception offences relating to three others and the documentary or false instruments offences - whether trial judge erred in admitting evidence of voice recordings where it was accepted by the prosecution that said recordings had been made illegally - whether trial judge erred in refusing to allow the appellant’s legal team to instruct a computer expert to examine material that had been served late as additional evidence - whether trial judge erred in allowing the prosecution to adduce the entirety of the appellant’s memorandum of interview - whether trial judge erred in refusing to grant direction in respect of one count and allowing jury to consider evidence relating to that count - whether trial judge erred in failing to address issues raised by the appellant in terms of the definition of ‘false’ and ‘instrument’ - whether trial judge erred in allowing prosecution to amend the dates relating to one count after the defence made submissions in relation to a deficiency of evidence - whether trial judge failed to address whether or not false instrument was used within the State - whether there had been general unfairness - whether trial judge failed to address evidence admitted under the Bankers' Books Evidence Act 1879 - whether prejudicial documents and telephone recordings correctly addressed by trial judge - whether trial judge erred in his charge as to whether appellant could be charged with both theft and money laundering.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.