Summary
After having fraudulently obtained two bounce-back loans (BBLs), our client was charged with three counts relating to fraud and money laundering, to which he pleaded guilty. It was alleged that our client used the funds for personal expenditure. Despite the likelihood that our client would be disqualified and receive an immediate prison sentence, the detailed representations provided by our team convinced the Judge that this was not necessary, and instead he imposed a suspended sentence.
Details of the Case
Our client is the Director of a company and fraudulently applied for and obtained the BBLs, as the funds were allocated with the intention that they would be used for business expenses only. However, our client transferred all funds to his personal account and accepted that he had had used the majority of funds for personal reasons.
In addition, our client obtained two BBLs when he was aware that he was only entitled to one. He was aware of the false representations he made on the application forms. Over £40,000 was obtained because of these loans. During his Police interview, our client gave a full account and admitted to having fraudulently obtained the loans.
Our Defence
Partner Massimo Trebar represented our client on a privately funded basis, where he collated extensive mitigation in our client’s case. Although our client accepted that his actions were fraudulent, he stated that the funds had been used for his family’s survival during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The case of R V Dagistan [2023] EWCA Crim 636 – A Court of Appeal Decision, set out guidance from the Court of Appeal, that Bounce Back Loan Fraud ought to be considered with higher culpability, and that the scheme ‘was an exceptionally vulnerable target of a time of national emergency’ and therefore that ‘…only immediate custody would sufficiently work and punish this serious offending’.
In that case, the defendant’s received an immediate Prison Sentence of over 24 months and were disqualified as Directors. The Court of Appeal reduced the sentences to 18 months, but ruled that they should remain as immediate custody, and not be suspended.
Due to this case law, it was clear that our client was at considerable risk of receiving an immediate prison sentence. However, Massimo was able to identify a number of personal mitigating features of the client’s case to differentiate this case from the lead case of R v Dagistan. In particular, Massimo was able to highlight the extent to which the client had taken steps to address issues of addiction and had embarked on significant recovery.
Massimo also made our client aware that the Court had the power to disqualify him as a Director. However, Massimo submitted that this would be disproportionately harsh as this would affect our client’s ability to maintain and support his young family.
Court
Our client’s case was committed for Sentence at St Albans Crown Court, where Barrister Katie Mustard of 9BR Chambers represented our client. Katie referred to the case of R V Dagistan, in which the Judge, Recorder Johnson, was the sentencing Judge himself.
Katie made full submissions seeking to persuade Judge Johnson to distinguish our client’s case from the case of R V Dagistan, although the facts were similar, and not to impose immediate custody or to disqualify our client as a Director.
After these submissions were made, the Judge indicated that he had been persuaded to take a different course. As a result, he imposed an eighteen-month custodial sentence suspended for eighteen months.
In his sentencing remarks, the Judge referred to the strength of Katie’s submissions which had persuaded him to take a different approach. He acknowledged that the precision with which the submissions were put forward on our client’s behalf was what stopped him imposing an immediate custodial sentence and our client going to prison.
Our client was extremely grateful to both Katie and Massimo for their hard work that led to this favourable outcome. Had it not been for Massimo’s extensive preparation ahead of court and for Katie’s careful submissions, our client would have been sent to prison immediately and disqualified as Director. This case is a clear example of our team’s expertise and dedication to securing the best possible outcome for our clients and shows the importance of seeking out specialist legal representation.
Looking for a specialist fraud solicitor?
Have you or someone you know recently been accused of a similar charge? Securing expert legal advice from the offset can make a big difference in the outcome of your case.
If you or someone you know is in need of guidance, please contact our specialist team on 0333 577 0522 or visit our enquiries page.
