Hillingdon

Hillingdon Trading Standards money laundering and trademarks prosecution of Harmohan Nangpal In this feature l counterfeit tobacco l Proceeds of crime act 2002 l trade marks act 2014 The waiting game Its all about perseverance and partnership working, say martin king and kiran seyan, after a 15-month trademark and money-laundering investigation ended in conviction H illingdon Trading Standards probe of Harmohan Singh Nangpal, a market trader from Hayes, finally ended in September 2016, following a 15-month investigation into trademark and money laundering offences. The process actually began two years before, when Thames Valley Polices Major Crime Unit executed a Section 9 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 search warrant at Nangpals home inSeptember 2014 as part of a different investigation. During that search, 1,084 packets of cigarettes and 1,082 50gpouchesof hand-rolling tobacco were found in the garage. Thepackaging of these items led officers to suspect that they may becounterfeit. The search also discovered 52,838 in cash, concealed in various locations around the house, including 18,000 in a bin in the bathroom, 1,648 under a mattress, and 32,000 in a canvas bag in a bedroom. Nangpal was arrested at the scene for an unrelated offence. The tobacco and cash found was unconnected with the police investigation, so Thames Valley Police contacted Hillingdon Trading Standards and we immediately sent an officer to the scene. We took possession of the suspected counterfeit tobacco, while the police seized the cash under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, because our accredited financial investigators (AFIs)* do not have cash seizure powers. The police took Nangpal to Milton Keynes police station, where hewas interviewed. There, his solicitor read out a prepared statementon his behalf, stating that the seized money was not from anyalleged criminal conduct, but from his business as a legitimate market stall trader. Nangpal also said that the tobacco belonged to someone else. All other questions put to him were met with a no comment response. money talks We sent samples of the seized tobacco to J oINT WorkINg the respective trademark representatives Following the seizure of cash by Thames Valley including Old Holborn, Marlboro, Police, close liaison between its financial crime Benson & Hedges, and Golden Virginia unit and our trading standards officers (TSOs) was to determine their status. Of the 2,166 essential. It was also important that actions taken items seized, 1,477 were confirmed as by each party should not impact on the others counterfeit. The remainder were found to investigation, so we kept each other updated by be illicit non duty paid products. phone and email. As the areas of investigation Following a case review, it was were unrelated in this case, there was no overlap. decided that Nangpal would be We also worked closely with Buckinghamshire investigated in respect of suspected Trading Standards after our enquiries revealed that Nangpal ran a stall at Aylesbury Market. offences under the Trade Marks Act 1994 In February 2013, TSOs from Buckinghamshire (possession of counterfeit goods) and the had seized counterfeit goods from Nangpals Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (moneystall, and he had received a written warning for laundering: possession of criminal trademark infringements. property). It was also agreed that TSOs had again visited his stall in November 2013 confiscation, under the Proceeds of when a large quantity of non-duty paid tobacco Crime Act 2002, would follow, should products were seized and handed over to HM convictions be secured. A financial Revenue and Customs, whose officers also gave investigation into Nangpal would run Nangpal a written warning. alongside the criminal probe. This demonstrated that Nangpal had a history Throughout the operation, regular cash of trading in counterfeit and illicit goods, and was essential evidence in our case. detention hearings took place at Milton Keynes Magistrates Court, which were handled by Thames Valley Police Financial Crime Unit. As confiscation was being considered, a memorandum of understanding was signed by Thames Valley Police and Hillingdon Council detailing how any incentivisation cash would be split. We made a decision early in the investigation to apply for a restraint order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, effectively freezing Nangpals assets; the order was issued by Isleworth Crown Court in January 2015. Our AFI obtained production orders in respect of Nangpals bank accounts; financial analysis showed that cash payments of more than 70,000 were made into them between November 2008 and November Following 2014.The analysis also showed that cash being paid into one of his Nangpals accounts was being used to cover the mortgage repayments on arrest, he was Nangpals home in Hayes. held on remand, so there was a delay before we were able to quiz him Of the 2,166 items seized, 1,477 were confirmed as counterfeit getting to trial Following Nangpals arrest by Thames Valley Police, he was held on remand, so there was a delay before we were able to quiz him, which was frustrating. In the summer of 2015, we interviewed Nangpal under caution when he was questioned about the counterfeit goods and cash seized at the scene. He was also questioned about the provenance of the cash used to pay his mortgage. On the advice of his solicitor, Nangpal answered no comment to all questions. In December 2015, legal proceedings against Nangpal began. He was charged with 12 offences eight relating to the possession of counterfeit goods contrary to section 92(1)(c) of the Trade Marks Act1994, and four related to money laundering offences under section 329(1)(a) and 329(1)(c) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. These involved money seized at the scene and the cash used to pay hismortgage. Nangpal appeared before Uxbridge Magistrates Court in January 2016, where he entered no plea. His trial took place in September 2016 at Isleworth Crown Court. Nangpal then pleaded guilty to the trademark offences, but denied the money laundering offences. Our AFI was called to give evidence for the prosecution about the money laundering offences. The defence had instructed a forensic accountant, who also gave evidence, as did Nangpal himself. Additionally, a large quantity of material including receipts purported to be for Nangpals market stock was shown to the prosecution during the trial. This came as a surprise because Nangpal and his defence had had ample time to offer these materials in advance. However, it is not unknown for these things to happen. Nangpal was due to give his evidence the following day, so that evening was spent reading through it in detail and attempting to verify information where possible. Following a three-day trial, the jury retired to consider their verdict. After eight hours deliberation, they returned guilty verdicts in respect of the money laundering offences. A confiscation hearing under the Proceeds of Crime Act will now take place later this year, after which time Nangpal will be sentenced. He is currently on bail. Footnote *Whether or not accreditedfinancialinvestigators (AFIs) have cash seizure powers comes down to logistics relating to the safe storage of large quantities of cash and the insurance for retaining it on the councils premises. If AFIs do have the cash seizure powers and appropriate arrangements for handling large quantities of cash and insurance in place, then they can do so. If they do not, then it would be advisable for them to ask the police to accompany them and seize the cash on trading standards behalf or, alternatively, they could liaisewith another trading standards departments AFI. Credits Martin King and Kiran Seyanare trading standards officers at Hillingdon Council. Images: iStock.com/bernie_photo iStock.com/deepblue4you To share this page, in the toolbar click on You might also like Cleaning up the Barras September 2016