The Court of Appeal has ruled that three-year prison sentences imposed on Calin Scintei for offences linked to ATM cash-trapping in Stillorgan and Dún Laoghaire were lenient but not unduly so.
The court dismissed the Director of Public Prosecutions' sentence review application on May 7, 2026. In reasons delivered on July 13, Mr Justice Alexander Owens said the sentences remained within the range a sentencing judge could properly impose.
Scintei pleaded guilty in the Circuit Court on March 27, 2025 to participating in the activities of a criminal organisation, criminal damage, and two theft-related offences. Three further possession offences involving a cash-trapping device were taken into consideration.
The court found that Scintei and two accomplices had gone to AIB ATMs in Stillorgan with cash-trapping devices on July 12, 2024. They installed the devices, damaged a cash machine and waited nearby while customers attempted withdrawals. They then returned to collect cash intercepted by the devices. About €1,800 was found when the group was intercepted.
A further theft offence concerned an AIB ATM in Dún Laoghaire.
On April 10, 2025, the Circuit Court selected headline sentences of four years for the four offences to which Scintei pleaded guilty. One year was deducted for his plea and limited personal mitigation, leaving concurrent three-year terms.
The DPP argued those sentences were unduly lenient. The Court of Appeal noted that Scintei had 124 previous convictions, including 93 Circuit Court convictions, and had returned to offending about eight months after his release from prison in November 2023.
However, the court distinguished his case from earlier authorities involving more serious or prolonged criminal enterprises. It held that the separate criminal-organisation charge did not substantially increase the overall gravity because much of the same conduct was already captured by the theft, criminal damage and device-possession offences.
The judges said a higher sentence could have been justified, but the DPP had not shown that the sentencing judge crossed the threshold into undue leniency.