Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Socialite James Stunt allowed his office in London’s Mayfair to become a “trusted center” for crime, prosecutors alleged Thursday in one of Britain’s biggest money laundering trials.
The former son-in-law of Formula 1 director Bernie Ecclestone has been accused of being part of a scheme that allowed criminals to funnel more than £200 million of ‘dirty money’ into the banking system over two years.
Stunt, 42, is one of five people on trial at Leeds Crown Court accused of money laundering, alongside Gregory Frankel, 47, Daniel Rawson, 47, Haroon Rashid, 54, and Arjun Babber, 32.
Fowler Oldfield, a Bradford-based precious metals and jewelery dealer owned by Frankel and Rawson, was a financial ‘gateway’ for criminals between 2014 and 2016, the court heard.
Prosecutors said the scheme allowed the criminals, whose identities were unknown, to evade financial due diligence checks. This allowed them to hide the illicit sources of their money as it “appeared to be a legitimate source” and most of it was used to buy gold, jurors were told.
“A reputable bank or merchant would have insisted on proper due diligence before accepting the cash or exchanging it for gold,” said Jonathan Sandiford KC, prosecuting.
The lawyer claimed that Stunt & Co, which is owned by Stunt, made the “lion’s share” of profits – about 70 percent – from the scheme. Tens of millions of pounds in cash were delivered by couriers to the offices in Mayfair and deposits were made into Fowler Oldfield’s NatWest bank account, he said.
Sandiford told jurors that Stunt, Petra Ecclestone’s former husband, allowed the site to be “used for the supply of criminal funds and some of the gold purchased with it” and that it “became a trusted hub for money laundering money”.
The court was told that Stunt denies knowing or suspecting that the money was criminal property.
It heard that while Frankel accepts that at least some of the cash supplied to Fowler Oldfield was criminal, he denies that he knew or suspected it was criminal property. Rawson, along with the two other defendants, disputes that the money was criminal property.
Sandiford said the most likely source of the money was drug trafficking, although it could also be other illegal activities such as fraud, human trafficking or illegal gambling.
The case continues.