Uncategorized

Saravanak Kumar successfully defends in a money laundering operation trial in St Alban’s Crown Court (R v Zaidi, Yousaf and Others)

Mr Kumar’s Client (Zaidi) was said to be one of the principal Defendants (this trial involved 6 defendants, whilst the other ‘connected trial’ involved 3 other defendants) in a money laundering operation from a fraudulent sale of house in London. The Prosecution’s case was that £ 250,000.00 of the fraud proceeds was dispersed by the conveyancing solicitors into two accounts, one of the accounts which belonged to Mr Kumar’s Client (Zaidi). The Client faced 9 counts of money laundering charges in a 23 counts indictment which alleged that the fraudulent monies were transacted from his bank account to a number of other individual’s bank accounts.   The Client’s case was that although it was his bank account, he did not have control of it at the relevant time and the transfers was actually

done by a co-defendant in the same trial – effectively running the ‘cut throat’ defence.

Through his cross examination of the said co-defendant with references to his own bank account’s specific transactions and the Client’s account, Mr Kumar was able to show the Client’s bank account was actually controlled by the co-defendant.

After Mr Kumar’s extensive and incisive cross examination of the co-defendant, the Judge directed the jury to return verdicts of ‘not guilty’ on the 8 counts that Mr Kumar’s Client was facing. The co-defendant was eventually found guilty by the jury whilst Mr Kumar’s Client was acquitted of all charges including the principal charge of ‘entering into a money laundering arrangement’ contrary to section 328 (1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

 

 

Read more on the ‘connected’ trial here:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-45183551

 

 

 

Saravanak Kumar successfully defends in a money laundering operation trial in St Alban’s Crown Court (R v Zaidi, Yousaf and Others)

Mr Kumar’s Client (Zaidi) was said to be one of the principal Defendants (this trial involved 6 defendants, whilst the other ‘connected trial’ involved 3 other defendants) in a money laundering operation from a fraudulent sale of house in London. The Prosecution’s case was that £ 250,000.00 of the fraud proceeds was dispersed by the conveyancing solicitors into two accounts, one of the accounts which belonged to Mr Kumar’s Client (Zaidi). The Client faced 9 counts of money laundering charges in a 23 counts indictment which alleged that the fraudulent monies were transacted from his bank account to a number of other individual’s bank accounts.  The Client’s case was that although it was his bank account, he did not have control of it at the relevant time and the transfers was actually 

done by a co-defendant in the same trial – effectively running the ‘cut throat’ defence. 

Through his cross examination of the said co-defendant with references to his own bank account’s specific transactions and the Client’s account, Mr Kumar was able to show the Client’s bank account was actually controlled by the co-defendant. 

After Mr Kumar’s extensive and incisive cross examination of the co-defendant, the Judge directed the jury to return verdicts of ‘not guilty’ on the 8 counts that Mr Kumar’s Client was facing. The co-defendant was eventually found guilty by the jury whilst Mr Kumar’s Client was acquitted of all charges including the principal charge of ‘entering into a money laundering arrangement’ contrary to section 328 (1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. 

Read more on the ‘connected’ trial here: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hereford-worcester-45183551

Saravanak Kumar successfully defends in a conspiracy to supply multi million pound worth of Class A drugs (R v Afrisib, Little and Others)

 
Mr. Kumar’s client was indicted with 7 others for conspiracy to supply class A drugs (opium) worth millions of pounds.
The client was arrested with 30.5 kilos opium (worth £ 1.1 million) whilst travelling on the M1 by the Serious Organised Crime Squad. The prosecution allegations included that the drugs were picked up after a shipment and that Mr. Kumar’s client was ‘caught red handed’ with the boxes of drugs for what was a nationwide supply operation.Mr. Kumar had to cross examine police officers on telephone evidence as the defence case was that someone else used the phone to make calls involving the drugs trade.
After a five week trial in Kingston Crown Court which involved a cut throat defence, all co-defendants were found guilty by the jury except for Mr Kumar’s client, in whose case the jury disagreed and could not reach a verdict.
In light of the jury’s findings, the prosecution offered no evidence and Mr. Kumar’s client was acquitted. All other co-defendants received custodial sentence ranging from 7 years up to 20 years imprisonment.
Mr. Kumarwas the only junior barrister in the trial under 4 years call whilst all other co-defending Counsel were over 20 years call.

Saravanak Kumar instructed in a serious case of prostitution R v Ziemys

R v T Ziemys – This was a difficult case involving allegations of the Defendant running 10 brothels and having control of 3 prostitutes.
The prosecution served last minute compelling telephone evidence (including cell site and billings data) allegedly connecting the client with the running of the brothels.
A detailed cross examination of prostitutes and police officer over telephone evidence took place by Mr. Kumar where it was made clear that the prostitutes were not being ‘coerced’ or forced into anything by the Defendant.
The Defendant was acquitted of 4 counts which resulted in a much lower sentence than expected (3 and a half years after time served meant 15 months actual imprisonment).
The Judge commented that despite overwhelming evidence, he was passing the sentence as above as it was evident there was no coercion or force by the Defendant.
Read more coverage of the case here.
To instruct SK, contact our clerks here.

S. W. Stevens – Successful high profile prosecution.

R v David MORRIS – A domestic violence case of Assault by Beating on 21/04/16.
Appearing against Adrian Waterman QC (Doughty Street Chambers), Stuart Stevens was instructed in a heavily contested Domestic Violence matter against a difficult backdrop of Family Court proceedings.
The trial took place following an unsuccessful application by Mr. Waterman QC for further disclosure and court intervention into the management of the case. The victim had told the Court of how she had been physically assaulted in a public car park by her ex partner following a disagreement regarding their infant child’s care arrangements. Mr. Waterman QC had sought to adduce the Family Court records as evidence of the victim’s bad character after obtaining leave to do so by the Family Court. Much of the defence case relied heavily on the supposed bad character of the victim which had been granted prior to the trial. After careful consideration the Court found the victim to be entirely credible and honest in her evidence. The defendant was convicted on full prosecution facts following the trial.Stuart is a Public Access Qualified Barrister who accepts work in a wide range of areas. To instruct Stuart, contact our clerks here.

Ahmed Muen (Pupil Barrister) – successful prosecution of a section 18 GBH wounding with intent at Highbury Youth Court.

R v O – A successful prosecution of a s18 wounding with intent matter within the youth court on 15/04/16. Appearing in the Highbury Youth Court, second six pupil Ahmed Muen was instructed for the prosecution in the s. 18 trial. After a full trial, the young defendant was found guilty on the full prosecution facts. The matter was put over for sentence at the Crown Court and is due to take place later this year. The facts were that the defendant was a friend of the 13 year old victim and his family. The Defendant had stabbed the victim in a pre medicated attack using a kitchen knife following a disagreement after they had attended school together. Evidence of the victim was heard through live link due to his age. The defendant had pleaded not guilty claiming that he had not attacked the victim with a knife, but rather that they had been ‘play fighting’ together.
To instruct Ahmed, contact our clerks here.

R v Andrew McKenzie

An allegation of rape was made by the complainant, a young boy, against Client who was his father. Crown called mother of the young Complainant to support their case. Careful cross examination of both the young Complainant and his mother ultimately resulted in a not guilty verdict.

R v Fisaitul Nordin (2015)

Malaysian scholarship student at Imperial College kept 30,000 double encrypted child porn images and a mannequin of young boy in his flat. Wrongly reported in the international press as five years, actual sentence was 9 months which enabled him to return to Malaysia within a month (time served).
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/malaysian-maths-student-at-imperial-college-kept-30000-child-porn-images-and-mannequin-of-young-boy-10217140.html

R v Alan Weeks (2015)

Led Saravanak Kumar of Holborn Chambers on a privately funded case. Client faced an allegation of historic rape made by the Complainant, his wife. The case also involved extensive cross examination of four individuals where alleged recent complaints where made by the Complainant. An acquittal on the more serious of charge of rape in the end.