This judgement concerned a conviction for money laundering. In February 2002, the Police together with officials of a local bank, started investigating Stephanie Butler, today a 22 year old woman.

Stephanie Butler did not have a fixed job or any source of income at the time and was the daughter of a man well known to the Police for his criminal activity that had generated large amounts of money. Her mother Carmen made numerous bank deposits and carried out transactions by virtue of the bank account in her daughter’s name.

From Police investigations, it resulted that during the period before 25 January 2002, Stephanie Butler, with her mother’s help, was assisting her father in giving a legal and legitimate appearance to money which her father obtained from various crimes. Her father had no bank accounts in his name since he made arrangements with her and her mother to invest this “dirty money” legitimately by virtue of bank deposits and the purchase of property and other things in her and her mother’s name. Although the husband and father was the mind behind the criminal activity, Stephanie and Carmen Butler intentionally committed the crime of money laundering by

(i) the conversion or transfer of property knowing that such property was derived directly or indirectly from, or the proceeds of, criminal activity or from an act or acts of participation in criminal activity, for the purpose of or purposes of concealing or disguising the origin of the property or of assisting any person or persons involved or concerned in criminal activity;

(ii) the concealment or disguise of the true nature, source, location, disposition, movement, rights with respect of, in or over, or ownership of property, knowing that such property is derived directly or indirectly from criminal activity or from an act or acts of participation in criminal activity;

(iii) the acquisition of property knowing that the same was derived or originated directly or indirectly from criminal activity or from an act or acts of participation in criminal activity;

(iv) retention without reasonable excuse of property knowing that the same was derived or originated directly or indirectly from criminal activity or from an act or acts of participation in criminal activity;

(v) attempting any of the matters or activities above.

The Prosecution requested the Court to sentence X and Y to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 20 years or to a fine not exceeding a Lm1 million or to both imprisonment and to any other punishment which could be legally imposed on the accused.

The jury found Stephanie Butler not guilty of the charge of money laundering while finding her mother Carmen guilty.

The defence pleaded the following:

1. Article 18 of the Criminal Code which states that “Where the several acts committed by the offender, even if at different times, constitute violations of the same provision of the law, and are committed in pursuance of the same design, such acts shall be deemed to be a single offence, called a continuous offence, but the punishment may be increased by one or two degrees.” The Defence insisted that this provision was applicable to the offence of money laundering which could be described as a system of conduct and pattern.

2. Carmen Butler was found guilty by a verdict of a minimum 6:3 votes;

3. The jury requested the forgiveness of the accused because she seemingly fell victim of a difficult family situation;

4. Carmen Butler had a clean criminal record.

5 Due to the daughter’s health problems, as well caring for her granddaughter, her presence was very much required considering that her husband was serving a long prison sentence in a foreign country.

For the above reasons, the Defence requested the Court to consider a suspended sentence as a more appropriate punishment for the crime committed by Carmen Butler.

The Court observed how the Legislator provided a maximum punishment yet not a minimum, hence leaving a wide discretion in the hands of the same Court to take into consideration objective facts of the case in question such as the amount of “laundered” money and how often the crime was committed as well as subjective facts such as the personal situation of the guilty party and her criminal intention.

The Court stated that the aim of every criminal is to make a gain and hence, those guilty of money laundering facilitate such criminals in the enjoyment of the fruits of their criminal activity. The Court went on to amplify the seriousness and gravity of this crime. Reference was also made to the fact that Y made use of her daughter who was merely 15 years old at the time. Not only did she cause her daughter to be the subject of criminal proceedings but she could potentially have introduced her daughter to the world of criminality at a very young age.

However, despite all these observations, the Court could not ignore the Defence’s pleas for consideration of Y’s life situation i.e. her daughter’s poor health and missing father. The Court noted that the amount of money in question amounted to circa Lm24,000, yet the exact amount that was actually “dirty money” was uncertain.

Finally, the Court stated that the fact that this case was certainly not the most serious case it had encountered coupled with all the circumstances mentioned above, despite the jury finding Carmen Butler guilty of the offence of money laundering, a suspended sentence of two year’s imprisonment to become effective if another offence punishable with imprisonment be committed within four years following the judgement as contemplated by Article 28A of the Criminal Court was appropriate. The Court further ordered the confiscation of the corpus delicti in line with Article 23 of the Criminal Code and ordered Y to pay e5,679.34 to cover expenses incurred by the Court for the appointment of experts.