Ahmed, Mumtaz

Mumtaz Ahmed was convicted in February 2003 of conspiracy to contravene section 49 (2) of the Drug Trafficking Act 1994.

Mr Ahmed received a sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment (reduced on appeal to four years and six months’). Mr Ahmed also received a confiscation order in the sum of £27,424.52 with 12 months’ imprisonment in default.

The CCRC received an application for review of the conviction in July 2005.

This was one of a series of cases where applicants to the CCRC had been convicted of conspiracy to commit money laundering offences.

In the House of Lords judgment in the case of R v Saik (2006), the Lords considered what matters had to be proved in order to establish the conspiracy offence.

Previously, a defendant could be convicted of conspiracy to commit a money laundering offence if they knew or suspected, or had reasonable grounds to suspect, that monies represented the proceeds of crime. This was the same “mental element” necessary as in the substantive offence.

In Saik, however, the Lords ruled that the mental element for conspiracy was different to the substantive offence.

For a conspiracy to have taken place, a defendant had to have known (or, depending on the circumstances, intended) that the money represented, or would represent, proceeds of criminal conduct.

There existed, therefore, a group of convicted persons who were in a position to argue that the prosecution had failed to establish all of the elements which, following Saik, were necessary in order to establish the conspiracy offence.

In this case, the jury were wrongly directed that they could convict Mr Ahmed of conspiracy on the basis that he only suspected that the property involved represented the proceeds of criminal conduct.

Following the decision in Saik, this was wrong in law.

The CCRC referred the conviction in May 2006.

The Court of Appeal quashed the conviction in February 2007 and ordered a retrial.