Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Socialite James Stunt allowed his offices in London’s Mayfair to become a “trusted hub” for criminality, prosecutors claimed on Thursday at one of the UK’s biggest money laundering trials.
The former son-in-law of Formula 1 head Bernie Ecclestone was accused of being part of a scheme that allowed criminals to funnel more than £200mn of “dirty money” into the banking system over two years.
Stunt, 42, is one of five individuals standing trial at Leeds Crown Court charged with money laundering alongside Gregory Frankel, 47, Daniel Rawson, 47, Haroon Rashid, 54, and Arjun Babber, 32.
A Bradford-based precious metals and jewellery dealer owned by Frankel and Rawson, Fowler Oldfield, was a financial “gateway” for criminals between 2014 and 2016, the court heard.
Prosecutors said that the scheme allowed the criminals, whose identity was unknown, to circumvent financial due-diligence checks. This allowed them to hide the illicit sources of their funds as it “appeared to be a legitimate source” and most of it was used to buy gold, jurors were told.
“A reputable bank or trader would have insisted on proper due diligence being carried out before accepting the cash or exchanging it for gold,” said Jonathan Sandiford KC, opening the prosecution case.
The barrister claimed that Stunt & Co, owned by Stunt, took the “lion’s share” of profits — about 70 per cent — from the scheme. Tens of millions of pounds in cash was dropped by couriers at the offices in Mayfair and deposits were made into Fowler Oldfield’s NatWest bank account, he said.
Sandiford told jurors that Stunt, the former husband of Petra Ecclestone, allowed the location “to be used for the delivery of criminal cash and some of the gold that had been purchased with it” and it “became a trusted hub for money laundering”.
The court was told that Stunt denies knowing or suspecting that the cash was criminal property.
It heard that while Frankel accepts that at least part of the cash delivered to Fowler Oldfield was criminal, he denies knowing or suspecting it to be criminal property. Rawson, along with the two other defendants, dispute that the cash was criminal property.
Sandiford said the most likely source of the cash was drug dealing, although it could also be other illegal activities including fraud, human trafficking or illegal gambling.
The case continues.
