Rizvi, Zafar

Zafar Rizvi was convicted in December 2001 of conspiracy to deal with the proceeds of drug trafficking. Mr Rizvi received a sentence of seven years’ imprisonment.

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

It was evident from the judge’s directions in Mr Rizvi’s case that it was left open to the jury to convict on the basis that Mr Rizvi only suspected that the money he converted was the proceeds of drug trafficking and/or other 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.