The Court of Appeal has resentenced a man convicted of eight sample counts of money laundering, ruling that the fully suspended 18-month sentence imposed by the Circuit Criminal Court was unduly lenient.
The appeal concerned a sentence imposed in Kilkenny on 28 July 2022. The Director of Public Prosecutions argued that the respondent’s offending required a custodial term to reflect deterrence. The respondent argued that the sentencing judge had properly weighed the mitigating and aggravating factors.
The indictment contained 32 counts, with the eight counts to which the respondent pleaded guilty covering conduct between January 2010 and December 2018. The Court of Appeal said the money involved was approximately €115,000, a moderate or medium sum in this type of offending, and that the respondent appeared to have played a leading role. His two sons were also involved and pleaded guilty at the same time.
The underlying criminal activity was not identified in the evidence before the sentencing court or the Court of Appeal. The judges said they could not speculate about it. The evidence excluded drugs or firearms offending at a national level, but the court said the criminality could not be characterised as merely a failure to make tax returns or pay tax. Its nature therefore remained unknown and was a neutral factor in sentencing.
The sentencing judge had set a three-year headline sentence, reduced it to 18 months and suspended the full term. Mitigating factors included the guilty pleas, which avoided an anticipated lengthy trial; an agreement with the Criminal Assets Bureau and Revenue; repayment through deductions from social welfare payments; some cooperation with Gardaí; and the respondent’s decision not to challenge orders preserving the funds. The court also noted his 15 previous convictions, none for similar conduct, and that most were at District Court level.
The Court of Appeal concluded that fully suspending the 18-month term placed the sentence outside the sentencing judge’s discretion. It quashed the sentence as unduly lenient and resentenced the respondent to 18 months’ imprisonment, with six months suspended. The court said the case was unusual because the underlying criminality was unknown and was unlikely to guide sentencing in future money laundering cases.