In one of Britain’s largest money laundering prosecutions, James Stunt, former son-in-law of Formula 1 mogul Bernie Ecclestone, faces accusations of transforming his Mayfair offices into a “trusted hub” for processing criminal proceeds exceeding £200 million over a two-year period, prosecutors told Leeds Crown Court on Thursday.
The Case Overview
Stunt, 42, stands trial alongside four co-defendants: Gregory Frankel (47), Daniel Rawson (47), Haroon Rashid (54), and Arjun Babber (32). The prosecution alleges that between 2014 and 2016, the defendants operated a sophisticated scheme centered around Bradford-based Fowler Oldfield, a precious metals and jewelry business owned by Frankel and Rawson.
According to lead prosecutor Jonathan Sandiford KC, the operation provided criminals with a financial “gateway” to circumvent standard due diligence procedures, effectively laundering funds through gold purchases. Stunt & Co, owned by the defendant, allegedly claimed approximately 70 percent of the scheme’s profits.
The Alleged Operation
Prosecutors described a system where couriers delivered millions in cash to Mayfair offices, with subsequent deposits made into Fowler Oldfield’s NatWest account. The prosecution contends that while standard financial institutions would have required thorough due diligence, this operation provided criminals with a seemingly legitimate avenue for processing illicit funds.
Legal Context and Analysis
This case represents a significant test of the UK’s money laundering legislation, particularly the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) and the Money Laundering Regulations 2017. The prosecution’s strategy appears to focus on establishing two key elements:
- The presence of criminal property under Section 340 of POCA
- The defendants’ knowledge or suspicion regarding the criminal origin of the funds
The case bears similarities to other high-profile money laundering prosecutions, notably R v GH (2015), where the Court of Appeal emphasized that prosecutors must prove defendants knew or suspected the criminal origin of property, rather than merely showing they should have known.
Defense Positions
The defendants present varying defense strategies:
- Stunt denies any knowledge or suspicion regarding the criminal nature of the funds
- Frankel acknowledges some cash was criminal but disputes knowledge of its nature
- Rawson, Rashid, and Babber contest the fundamental premise that the cash constituted criminal property
The prosecution suggests the funds likely originated from drug trafficking, though they acknowledge other potential sources including fraud, human trafficking, or illegal gambling. This approach aligns with the precedent set in R v Anwoir (2008), where the Court of Appeal confirmed that criminal property can be proved through either direct evidence of specific criminality or circumstantial evidence of an irresistible inference.
Regulatory Implications
This case highlights potential gaps in the UK’s anti-money laundering (AML) framework, particularly regarding high-value dealers in precious metals. It follows several recent regulatory changes strengthening due diligence requirements for such businesses, including amendments to the Money Laundering Regulations that expanded oversight of the precious metals sector.
The prosecution’s focus on the circumvention of due diligence procedures underscores the ongoing challenge faced by financial regulators in balancing commercial flexibility with effective controls against financial crime. The outcome could influence future regulatory approaches to high-value dealers and their role in the UK’s AML framework.
The trial continues at Leeds Crown Court, with significant implications for both the defendants and the broader landscape of financial crime enforcement in the UK.