The Court of Appeal has dismissed Simon Gold’s appeal against conviction, rejecting all grounds challenging rulings made during his 2019 trial.
Gold was convicted after a 28-day trial in May and June 2019 on counts involving money laundering, deception, and false instruments. He was later sentenced to seven and a half years in prison on each money laundering count and three years on the deception counts, with the sentences to run concurrently. The appeal concerned conviction; the judgment does not decide a sentence appeal.
The prosecution case at trial was that Gold presented himself under several names as a financier and used companies and documents to obtain money from people seeking loans or investments. The Court of Appeal’s judgment recounts allegations involving Irish victims and Danish businessman Kurt Lauridsen. It describes, among other matters, claims that victims paid advance fees for loans that did not arrive, and that Lauridsen transferred €1.6 million to an Anglo Irish Global account opened using a false electricity bill. These are descriptions of the prosecution case and evidence set out in the judgment, not new findings made by the appeal court.
Gold argued that the trial should have been divided, that recordings allegedly made by a private individual should have been excluded, and that the defence should have been allowed expert examination of computer evidence. The appeal court upheld the trial judge’s decisions. On the recordings, it said there was no automatic rule excluding evidence created by a third party without State involvement; admissibility depended on the circumstances. It found that the trial judge had properly exercised discretion in admitting the recordings.
The court also rejected complaints about the timing of interview evidence, jury directions, documentary evidence, and amendments to the dates alleged for one count. On an allegation concerning a false driving licence used to obtain computer finance, the court said the jury had cogent evidence in Gold’s interview admission, despite the trial judge having excluded testimony from a shop witness.
The appeal court said theft and money laundering should not routinely be charged as alternatives, describing that as poor practice. But it found no unfairness or injustice in this case. It dismissed the appeal against conviction.