The Court of Appeal has quashed Henry Alinta’s money-laundering conviction after finding a significant risk that the jury was left thinking he had to disprove a statutory presumption. The court allowed his appeal but did not order a retrial because he had served the sentence imposed.
Alinta had been convicted by a jury at Trim Circuit Criminal Court on 29 May 2017 of possessing criminal proceeds, contrary to section 7(1) of the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing) Act 2010. The case concerned €127,100 and £146,940 found in a bag in the boot of a car stopped at the M1 toll plaza outside Drogheda on 2 August 2014. Alinta was a passenger; his wife was driving, and their children were also in the car.
At interview, Alinta said he had collected the bag at Liffey Valley Shopping Centre for a Nigerian friend, Sanni, a money changer. He said he knew it contained his friend’s money but did not know the amount. The prosecution alleged that he knew or believed the cash was criminal proceeds, or was reckless about that possibility. The jury unanimously convicted him, and he received a four-year prison term, with the final 18 months suspended on conditions.
The appeal focused on the trial judge’s directions about section 11 of the Act. That provision allows a presumption about a person’s knowledge or recklessness to arise in specified circumstances. The Court of Appeal said the prosecution still had to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and there was no legal burden on Alinta to disprove an element of the case.
The appeal court found that part of the judge’s explanation of another statutory provision could have confused the jury about the separate requirement to establish that the money was criminal proceeds. It also found a real and significant risk that the judge’s explanation of rebuttal evidence and the distinction between legal and evidential burdens left jurors thinking Alinta had some responsibility to negate the presumption or disprove the required state of mind. General directions that the prosecution carried the burden did not remove that risk. The court upheld those complaints and held that the verdict could not stand.
The court rejected a separate complaint about an interview record that went to the jury without an agreed redaction, finding the unredacted passage could not have prejudiced Alinta. It did not decide his further claim that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence and perverse. The appeal concerned the conviction only; the court quashed it and, because Alinta had served his sentence, made no retrial order.