Judgment: 2019-10-15 · Court archive

Court of Appeal upholds four-year money laundering sentence for Prince Ajibola

Court of Appeal ·

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Prince Ajibola (Appellant)
What

Court of Appeal upholds four-year money laundering sentence for Prince Ajibola

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Dublin Circuit Court
  • Ulster Bank
  • Dublin Airport
  • Court of Appeal
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments. It held that the offence could properly be placed at the upper end of the low range or lower end of the mid-range and that deterrence was a legitimate sentencing objective.

The Court of Appeal has upheld a four-year sentence, with the final two years suspended, imposed on Prince Ajibola for laundering €32,000 stolen through an email interception fraud.

Ajibola pleaded guilty in Dublin Circuit Court to handling criminal proceeds. The money had been intended for Gaynor Plant Sales after a contractor arranged finance through Practical Finance and Finance Ireland for the purchase of construction equipment.

Garda evidence was that an email seeking Gaynor Plant Sales’ bank details was intercepted. A fraudulent reply was then sent from a similar-looking email address, directing the €32,000 payment into an Ulster Bank account at Monastery Road, Clondalkin, linked to Ajibola.

After the transfer on August 9, 2016, the funds were spent or withdrawn over about a month. Bank records showed purchases, cash withdrawals and transfers linked to Ajibola. Gardaí also traced foreign-currency purchases at Dublin Airport where he had used his passport as identification.

Ajibola was arrested at Dublin Airport on September 1 with €8,000 in cash. He admitted the €32,000 had entered his account and said a man he knew as “Kumar” had asked him to facilitate the transaction. He claimed to have received €300. Prosecutors accepted there was no evidence linking him to the original deception itself.

At sentencing, Ajibola produced €1,900 towards restitution. The court also took account of his guilty plea, some cooperation, health problems and personal circumstances. He had previous convictions, although none were directly relevant.

On appeal, Ajibola argued that the four-year headline sentence overstated the gravity of his role and that he had not received enough credit for mitigation.

The Court of Appeal rejected both arguments. It held that the offence could properly be placed at the upper end of the low range or lower end of the mid-range and that deterrence was a legitimate sentencing objective.

It also noted that suspending half of the four-year term amounted to an effective 50% reduction. The appeal was dismissed.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review