Money laundering is a serious offence which and the Jersey courts (AG-v-Goodwin [2016] JRC 165 / The Attorney General -v-Darryn Rae Antonio Miguel Spinola) has previously had regard to the English authority of R v Monfries [2004] 2 Cr. App. R.(S) 3, in which the English Court of Appeal set out a number of principles:-

 1. There is not necessarily a direct relationship between the sentence for the laundering offence and the original antecedent offence.

a.Where, however, the particular antecedent offence can be identified, some regard will be had to the appropriate sentence for that offence when considering the appropriate sentence for the laundering offence.

2. The criminality in laundering is the assistance, support and encouragement it provides to criminal conduct.

3. Regard should be had to the extent of the launderer’s knowledge of the antecedent offence.

4. The amount of money laundered is a relevant factor.

Also

 5. In AG v Gomes and others [2007] JRC 129, the Court indicated that in addition to these principles, regard should be had to the period of time during which the money laundering occurs.

6.In Bhojwani v AG [2011] JCA 034, the following principles were added:-

a. No distinction is to be drawn as a matter of law between the laundering of one’s own proceeds of crime and the proceeds of crime  committed by third parties

b. A professional money laundering service is not necessarily more serious than laundering the proceeds of a one off fraud – it may be so, but each case will depend on its own facts.

7. The interests of Jersey as a finance centre justified an element of deterrence in the sentence.

8. In AG v Bhojwani [2010] JRC 116, the Royal Court had held that the duration, sophistication and scale of money laundering are also relevant considerations.