Conviction for money laundering quashed in Liffey Valley case
Met man at shopping centre
The owner of a clothes-recycling company who said he had travelled to Liffey Valley Shopping centre to collect money will not be retried for alleged money laundering after the Court of Appeal quashed his conviction.
Henry Alinta (44), with an address at Ashbrook Mews, Newry, Co Down, had pleaded not (NOT) guilty to money laundering contrary to Section 7.1 of the Criminal Justice Money Laundering and Terrorism Financing Act 2010.
Trim Circuit Criminal Court heard that Mr Alinta was stopped at the M1 Toll Plaza outside Drogheda, while he was a passenger in a BMW X6, driven by his wife. Gardaí searched the vehicle and found cash in the sums €127,000 and £146.940 in the boot.
Mr Alinta told the gardaí that he was the sole owner and director of a company in the business of recycling clothes called "Aligreen Recycling Limited", and was on a salary of £50,000 per year, plus “add-ons".
He said he had travelled that day from Newry to Liffey Valley Shopping Centre, where he met an Irish individual, whose name he did not know.
Mr Alinta told gardaí that he collected a bag from this individual, knowing the bag to contain money, but not the amount. He said he did this on the instructions of a friend in Nigeria, a "money-changer" named “Sanni".
Later, it was established that Mr Alinta had obtained the number of the Irish individual from a Dutch phone number, which he had not mentioned in his garda interview.
He was found guilty of money laundering by a jury at Trim Circuit Criminal Court after 27 minutes of deliberations and was sentenced to four years imprisonment with the final 18 months suspended by Judge Michael O’Shea in 2017.
The Court of Appeal quashed his conviction earlier this month on grounds that the trial judge may have "confused" the jury on the presumption of innocence and the onus of proof.
Giving judgment, Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said the prosecution had to prove Mr Alinta knew or believed the money was the proceeds of criminal conduct, or was reckless to that possibility.
He said there was evidence on the face of it that the money was the proceeds of crime, and the jury were “rightly” called to consider whether Mr Alinta had the necessary state of mind, possession having been admitted.
However, Mr Justice McCarthy said the trial judge left the jury with the impression that the accused had to prove the monies were not the proceeds of crime. He said the trial judge’s explanation to the jury in respect of certain presumptions, created “confusion” which was “fatal to the integrity” of the trial judge’s overall instructions.
He said the jury might have been led to “conflate” the presumption in relation to the accused’s state of mind, with the requirement on the prosecution to prove the money was the proceeds of crime. The jury may have been led to believe there was a presumption in relation to the latter aspect also, the judge added.
Mr Justice McCarthy said the distinction between legal and evidential burdens “may be lost on a jury”. These were “legal terms of art” and were “not well explained”.
He said issues around the presumptions had previously given rise to “confusion even amongst lawyers” to the point where “it may be inappropriate to use them” in charging a jury.
The court declined to order a retrial yesterday after hearing submissions from Mr Alinta’s barrister, Pauline Walley SC.
Ms Walley said her client was a “devoted Christian” who had suffered “real loss of standing” in the community.
She said he had fully served his sentence and it would not be in the interests of justice to order a retrial. It would be the third trial Mr Alinta would have to face on the matter, the first trial having collapsed through no fault of his own.
Mr Justice John Edwards, who sat with Mr Justice McCarthy and Ms Justice Isobel Kennedy, said it was a “finely balanced” matter but the court was of the view there should be no retrial.