Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Socialite James Stunt has told a jury that at no time did he suspect his offices in London’s Mayfair were being used for money laundering, after prosecutors claimed the premises were a “trusted hub” for crime.
The former son-in-law of Formula 1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone testified at Leeds Crown Court on Wednesday after being accused of being part of a scheme that allowed criminals to funnel more than £200 million of “dirty money” into the banking system. two years.
Stunt, who was married to Ecclestone’s daughter Petra for six years, acknowledged living an “extravagant lifestyle” with access to “dazzling wealth”.
He also accepted that he had drawn attention to himself because he had driven “a lot of flashy cars”, but said he was not seeking publicity. The tabloid press, he said, “builds you up to destroy you.”
Stunt, 42, is one of five people on trial for money laundering.
The Ecclestones are not suspects in the trial and are not accused of any wrongdoing.
Jurors have been told that a Bradford-based precious metals and jewelery dealer, Fowler Oldfield, was a financial ‘gateway’ for criminals between 2014 and 2016.
Opening their case in October, prosecutors alleged that criminals were able to bypass financial due diligence checks, allowing them to hide the illicit sources of their money. Most of it was used to buy gold.
Prosecutors alleged that Stunt & Co, owned by Stunt, had taken the “lion’s share” of profits from the scheme and that tens of millions of pounds in cash had been dropped by couriers at its offices in Mayfair.
Stunt was asked by his barrister Trevor Burke KC on Wednesday: “Did you believe you were entering into a criminal agreement to facilitate the deposit of criminal proceeds of crime?” The suspect replied: “Absolutely not.”
Stunt gave the same answer when asked if he “would have ever agreed to commit a crime?” or if he suspected he was “becoming involved in a criminal enterprise?”
While in the gold business, his company never dealt in cash, Stunt added.
It was later put to Stunt that you “at no time suspected” that the property was a place for money laundering? He replied that this was the case.
Jurors heard that Stunt, the son of a wealthy businessman, had enjoyed the benefits of wealth, including protection from bodyguards, but had struggled with addiction in the past.
He told the court that before his marriage to Petra he had drawn up a pre-nuptial agreement, which limited his claim in the event of divorce to £16 million.
He described himself as a “Luddite and technophobe” who relied on Petra to forward email messages to him.
The defendants deny the charges and the trial continues.