The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Igor Logvinov against the severity of a three-year prison sentence for money laundering involving €56,350 in cash.
Logvinov pleaded guilty in Dublin Circuit Criminal Court on 23 November 2023 to one count of money laundering under section 7 of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. He was sentenced on 13 December 2023 to three years’ imprisonment, backdated to 7 July 2023, when he entered custody.
The appeal was limited to two arguments: that the sentencing judge set too high a headline sentence and should have suspended part of the prison term.
The Court of Appeal judgment said Gardaí had observed Logvinov at a filling station on 4 July 2023, receiving a package from a passenger in a BMW. Three days later, Gardaí searched the accommodation he was renting and seized €50,000 in a Centra bag and €6,465 in a black satchel. At interview, he said he was the legitimate owner of the money.
At sentencing, an investigating garda said Logvinov had a high-level role in a criminal operation and had entered Ireland to store and distribute large amounts of cash that were proceeds of crime. The Court of Appeal described the operation as organised, planned and sophisticated. It said the sum, while “not vast”, was substantial for this type of offence, which carries a maximum penalty of 14 years’ imprisonment.
The sentencing judge set a headline sentence of four and a half years, then reduced it to three years to account for Logvinov’s early guilty plea and personal circumstances, including his age, lack of previous convictions and lack of family ties in Ireland. The appeal court found no error in principle in setting the headline sentence.
On suspension, the court said the sentencing judge had already considered Logvinov’s age, record and the difficulty imprisonment would present. It also found no evidence had been put before the sentencing judge to support the proposed suspension as an incentive. The court concluded that the decision whether to suspend part of a sentence was within the sentencing judge’s discretion and that no error had been shown. It dismissed the sentence appeal.