The Court of Appeal has dismissed an application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to review as unduly lenient the sentence imposed on Giuseppe Divicarro for money laundering and participation in a criminal organisation.
In its judgment delivered on 28 January 2022, the court said the sentence did not meet the threshold for establishing undue leniency. It rejected the contention that the sentencing judge had made an error of principle. The application was dismissed; the Court of Appeal did not increase the sentence.
Divicarro had pleaded guilty to participating in the activity of a criminal organisation and to seven money laundering counts. The Dublin Circuit Court imposed concurrent five-year terms, with the final 18 months suspended on conditions. The sentencing judge had identified a seven-year headline sentence for the principal offences. The order also required Divicarro to leave Ireland within 14 days of release and undertake not to return for 15 years.
The appeal judgment recounted evidence that eight bank accounts associated with Divicarro received a total of €200,019.65. Of that sum, €138,573.50 was withdrawn within days, while €61,446.15 was recalled to remitting banks after fraud was identified. The accounts were linked to invoice redirection fraud, in which victims are induced to send payments to bank accounts controlled by fraudsters. The judgment said investigators considered the wider criminal organisation to have stolen and laundered well over €1 million by April 2020.
The DPP argued that the seven-year headline sentence understated the gravity of repeated offending connected to an international organisation, and that the suspended portion of the sentence was excessive. Divicarro’s counsel submitted that the sentencing judge had properly weighed the offences and his personal circumstances, and that the DPP had not met the high threshold for a successful undue-leniency application.
The Court of Appeal said due weight may not have been given to mitigation when the post-mitigation sentence was set. It also said it would not have suspended such a significant part of the sentence if dealing with the case at first instance, and that the period served in custody might have been greater. However, considering the sentencing judge’s margin of discretion, the court concluded the final result did not reach the threshold for intervention.