{"id":652118,"date":"2026-04-22T22:31:39","date_gmt":"2026-04-22T20:31:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/"},"modified":"2026-04-22T22:31:39","modified_gmt":"2026-04-22T20:31:39","slug":"r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2","status":"publish","type":"kji_decision","link":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/","title":{"rendered":"R v Puvinder Singh Briah"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n

LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: Introduction 1 On 22\u00a0March\u00a02016, following a trial in the Crown Court at Blackfriars before HHJ Richardson and a jury, the\u00a0appellant, Puvinder Singh Briah, was convicted of conspiracy to launder money and on 23\u00a0March\u00a02016 he was convicted of conspiracy to pervert the\u00a0course of public justice. 2 There were four co-accused. Tajinder\u00a0Padda\u00a0was convicted in the\u00a0same trial of conspiracy to launder money. The\u00a0three others who were alleged to be part of the operation were Surinder\u00a0Pal, subsequently sentenced to four\u00a0years' imprisonment for money laundering; Akshai Pidakala, who was also convicted of money laundering and sentenced to seven\u00a0years' imprisonment; and Parmjit Lail, who was acquitted. 3 On 23\u00a0March 2016 the\u00a0appellant was sentenced to 12\u00a0years' imprisonment for the offence of money laundering and to two consecutive terms of 12\u00a0months' and four\u00a0months' imprisonment respectively, for conspiracy to pervert the\u00a0course of public justice and failing to surrender, which he had earlier admitted. The\u00a0total sentence was 13\u00a0years and four\u00a0months' imprisonment and he was also disqualified under section 2 Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 for a\u00a0period of 12\u00a0years. 4 Padda was sentenced in the\u00a0same terms for his role in the\u00a0money laundering conspiracy. 5 Both the\u00a0appellant and Padda\u00a0lodged applications for leave to appeal against conviction and sentence. Those applications were refused by the\u00a0single judge. Although they were initially renewed to the\u00a0full court, the\u00a0applications were abandoned before any hearing took place. 6 Contested confiscation proceedings took place against Padda and the appellant. On 6\u00a0April\u00a02021 at the Central Criminal Court before HHJ Hillen, Padda\u00a0was ordered to pay a\u00a0confiscation order in the\u00a0amount of \u00a3555,900.59 under section 6 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. His application for leave to appeal that order was refused by the\u00a0single judge on the papers and by this court following a\u00a0renewed oral hearing earlier this year. 7 The\u00a0appellant was ordered by HHJ\u00a0Hillen to pay a\u00a0confiscation order of \u00a3696,067.04 under section 6 Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, within four\u00a0months or, in default, serve six\u00a0years' imprisonment consecutively to the term imposed for the substantive offence. He too appealed. This court was persuaded to give leave to appeal against the confiscation order on two specific grounds. The first relates to four cheques payable to HMRC which he says should have been taken into account in calculating the\u00a0available amount. The\u00a0second is an\u00a0asserted double counting error said to have been made by the\u00a0judge. 8 Ms\u00a0Bracken appeared for the\u00a0appellant and Mr\u00a0Benson KC for the prosecution. We are grateful to both counsel for the assistance with which we have been provided, and in particular, their careful, focussed submissions. The facts 9 The\u00a0facts underlying the\u00a0case are lengthy. For present purposes, it is sufficient to summarise them as follows. The\u00a0appellant and Padda\u00a0were involved in an\u00a0organised crime group which engaged in large-scale excise fraud. The fraud generated large cash sums which were subsequently laundered. These two men were the\u00a0prime-movers in the\u00a0conspiracy and were the\u00a0joint heads of the\u00a0Gravesend-based organised crime group. Their activities involved the\u00a0control and distribution of excise duty on suspended quantities of alcohol and cigarettes, which were then sold for profit without excise duty being paid. The profits were then laundered through a\u00a0network of front companies which existed for that purpose alone. Cash proceeds from the\u00a0sale of the\u00a0smuggled alcohol and cigarettes were transported within the\u00a0UK through a\u00a0cash courier network and cash and carry stores which purchased the\u00a0alcohol and cigarettes from the\u00a0organised crime group. 10 A\u00a0sense of the scale of the enterprise can be ascertained from the description of some extracts of the evidence. First, there were cash seizures made by the\u00a0British Transport Police, on 11\u00a0January\u00a02012 at Euston Station in an\u00a0amount of \u00a3134,000 (odd); and on 2\u00a0June\u00a02012 when \u00a330,000 (odd) was seized at St\u00a0Pancras. It was established that French couriers were paid to travel regularly from France to the\u00a0UK in an\u00a0attempt to legitimise the\u00a0movements of large quantities of cash. 11 Secondly, handwritten notes were seized from the house of one of the associates which also serve to demonstrate the\u00a0size of the profits. On the\u00a0second page of the handwritten notes an\u00a0entry dated 18\u00a0November\u00a02010 read \u201cleft was \u00a3100,000\u201d, followed by two columns showing \u201cP(50)\u201d and \u201cT(50)\u201d. The prosecution asserted that this showed that any amounts of cash left over were distributed equally between the\u00a0appellant and Padda. 12 Thirdly, a\u00a0memory stick was seized from Akshai Pidakala's person or premises. This was found to have contained a\u00a0deleted spreadsheet that came to be known as exhibit HOM\/105. Forensic investigators were able to recover the spreadsheet. It was an off-record ledger reflecting the value of the\u00a0fraud between 25\u00a0January and 15\u00a0December\u00a02010. It recorded cash sums coming into the\u00a0organised crime group and the amounts distributed out to various individuals, including the\u00a0appellant and Padda. The\u00a0total sum recorded as coming in amounted to nearly \u00a331\u00a0million. 13 The\u00a0prosecution alleged that Padda\u00a0used aliases, including Terry, Titch and T and that the\u00a0appellant used the\u00a0alias of Peter or P. 14 The\u00a0trial judge concluded that the fraud continued beyond the\u00a0scope of what was contained in the spreadsheet and the amount of cash collected was not less than \u00a360\u00a0million, reflecting the\u00a0fact that the offence in count\u00a01 was particularised in the\u00a0indictment as having been committed between 9\u00a0February\u00a02010 and 18\u00a0July\u00a02013. The\u00a0\u00a360 million figure was reached by extrapolating the\u00a0\u00a330 million per year turnover figure on HOM\/105 to reach a figure for the\u00a0entire period of the conspiracy of \u00a3100 million. The\u00a0judge accepted, however, that the\u00a0conspiracy declined in its later months and therefore arrived at the figure of \u00a360\u00a0million by way of a\u00a0total turnover figure. 15 The\u00a0spreadsheet showed that Padda\u00a0was the\u00a0direct recipient of \u00a3109,000 (odd) and that Briah was the\u00a0direct recipient of \u00a3180,650, although those figures were believed by the\u00a0prosecution to represent only a\u00a0small percentage of the payments received by these two men. 16 The\u00a0confiscation proceedings were themselves lengthy. They were also complicated, as the judge observed, by various interim applications and by the\u00a0pandemic. Although throughout 2016 and 2017 there were exchanges of witness statements and submissions, a\u00a0full opening only took place in relation to the confiscation proceedings in July 2020, with cross-examination of those witnesses who were called to give evidence in December 2020 and written closing submissions served in 2021. 17 The\u00a0prosecution contended for a\u00a0benefit figure in respect of the criminal conduct of \u00a360\u00a0million, placing reliance on the trial judge's findings. For Padda\u00a0the\u00a0prosecution contended for an\u00a0available amount of just over \u00a3882,000. For the\u00a0appellant, they contended for a\u00a0figure of just over \u00a3844,000. For their part, both Padda and the\u00a0appellant essentially argued that the\u00a0available amount should be limited to the profit in the\u00a0form of the duty evaded. Many detailed points were taken as to the valuations, profit margins, costs of the operation and overheads to be deducted, and so forth. It is unnecessary for us to summarise these arguments. 18 The\u00a0appellant accepted that\u00a0entries marked Peter or P on the spreadsheets may have indicated payments to him. He contended, however, that there was double counting of certain sums and that one recorded sum of \u00a3200,000 was owed to him but not in fact paid. 19 The\u00a0prosecution also relied on withdrawals by cheque from the\u00a0appellant's account. In his section 17 statement dated 30\u00a0January\u00a02018, the appellant provided a\u00a0schedule showing the\u00a0destination of some cheque payments together with exhibited copies of certain cheque stubs. The\u00a0prosecution responded to the statement contending that the\u00a0exhibit was largely unreadable and did not constitute compelling evidence. In response, the\u00a0appellant provided better copies of the\u00a0cheque stubs. We shall return to this aspect of the evidence below. 20 Neither the\u00a0appellant nor Padda\u00a0gave evidence at the confiscation hearing. The impugned ruling 21 HHJ\u00a0Hillen produced a\u00a0careful, well-reasoned and comprehensive ruling on the\u00a0confiscation issues. Given the\u00a0scope of the appeal, which is directed at the findings made by the judge as to the\u00a0available amount, it is unnecessary for us to summarise in any detail those aspects of the judge's ruling that dealt with the\u00a0benefit figure. 22 In short, HHJ Hillen made clear that the\u00a0benefit was to be assessed on the\u00a0basis of gross amounts obtained and not net profit. The\u00a0judge at trial found these two individuals to be the\u00a0leaders in the\u00a0conspiracy. Neither had given evidence and the\u00a0evidence of the co-accused contradicted their assertions that they were not the\u00a0prime-movers. There was nothing in the confiscation proceedings to displace the\u00a0judgment of the trial judge. HHJ Hillen referred to the\u00a0reliance placed by the\u00a0judge on HOM\/105, which covered most of 2010 and which was described as a \u201ccash account for the collection and distribution of this money\u201d. HHJ Hillen observed that the prosecution was unable to prove the\u00a0amount of cash proceeds during the\u00a0remaining part of the conspiracy as indicted. However, there was undoubted proof the\u00a0conspiracy continued until at least the\u00a0end date pleaded in the\u00a0indictment and he depended on the\u00a0findings of the trial judge who heard the evidence and properly directed himself as to findings of fact for the purpose of sentence. The trial judge regarded \u00a360\u00a0million, less cash seized and forfeited, as a\u00a0conservative estimate. A\u00a0benefit figure in that sum was just and proportionate. Nothing from either man had served to dislodge the trial judge\u2019s assessment. Ultimately, the\u00a0judge identified the\u00a0benefit figure in the\u00a0case of each of the\u00a0appellant and Padda\u00a0as \u00a359,827,230. 23 The\u00a0available amount fell into three categories: identified assets; tainted gifts amounting to approximately \u00a391,000 (made up of money, watches, etc); and hidden assets. The\u00a0judge described ascertaining the\u00a0value of the hidden assets as a\u00a0\u201cvexed question\u201d. He observed correctly that if he was satisfied by the\u00a0Crown that there was evidence of hidden assets, it was for each of Padda\u00a0and the\u00a0appellant to prove that he had not obtained the\u00a0benefit of those assets. The\u00a0judge recognised the\u00a0clear evidence of a\u00a0willingness to move money and hide it away. He considered that the appellant showed a\u00a0willingness to dispose of his property. He concluded that there was a\u00a0reasonable inference that both men had hidden assets, and therefore proceeded to make a\u00a0fair and proportionate assessment of those assets. 24 In relation to the\u00a0appellant (referred to as Briah in the ruling), he dealt with hidden assets at paragraphs 48 to 54 of his ruling as follows: \u201c48. The Crown have conducted an analysis of Briah\u2019s known bank accounts (set out in paragraphs 7.4 to 7.20 of Volume 1 Flap 2 Confiscation bundle) and produce a schedule of such payments (conservatively put at withdrawals over \u00a3500 (Appendix 19 to volume 1 Flap 2 Confiscation bundle). These payments are made between 11th August 2010 and 13th April 2016. None of the destinations of these amounts have been identified by Briah to my satisfaction on a balance of probabilities. I am therefore of the opinion that these constitute hidden assets amounting, once CPIH has been added to \u00a3212,150.74 49. From HOM 105 (see above) the Crown have extracted from the payments made to 'Peter' or 'P' between 1st February 2010 and 18th November 2010. (Appendix 2a to Volume 1 Flap 2 Confiscation bundle). The defendant Does not dispute that Peter or P 'may' indicate payments to him. It was clear to the trial judge in sentencing that this was a figure lower than reality. None of the destinations of these monies have been identified by the defendant sufficiently. He asserts for instance that payments were expenses and cites as an example that the payment of \u00a317.000 on 1st February 2010 related to Belgian duty. He adduces no evidence for any of these assertions. It is incumbent upon him to do so. Consequently I am of the opinion that these constitute hidden assets amounting to \u00a3118,650.00. 50. Recovered from the memory stick found in a co-conspirators house there appear to be payments made again to 'P'. showing a total of \u00a3106,185 (in amounts more than \u00a3500) received over a 22-month period from 22nd January 2009 and 11th December 2010. (Appendix 20 to Volume 1 Flap 2 Confiscation bundle). The defendant contends that these represent 'living Expenses'. Of course, even criminals have to eat and the figure denoted as 'wages' on that spreadsheet ought in my judgement to be deducted from the total. It also seems to me that where there is designation of particular payments, e.g. to 'Party', that would indicate that those funds have been dissipated. However, where there are funds which cannot be accounted for either by particular designation, or for living expenses, those sums are, in my judgment hidden assets. Consequently, if the arithmetic is correct I deduct \u00a352,955 from the figure suggested by the Crown as hidden assets on this schedule. Thus, the figure of \u00a353,230 are hidden assets. (Note the \u00a351000 on 28th March 2009 is not counted by The Crown- though the defendant answers it Saying it was lodge with Lail for safekeeping (see response of 20.1.18) 51. In Appendix 21 to Volume 1 Flap 2 Confiscation bundle is a document recovered from the same source as the previous document. It shows a payment made to the defendant and to Padda of \u00a334,592. Since the learned trial judge found Padda and Briah to be the prime movers, it is reasonable to conclude that this figure would be equally divided between them. However, I accept the defendant\u2019s interpretation of the document as set out in Volume 1 Flap 5 Confiscation bundle on page 8. He accepts profit of \u00a37784.17. He suggests that this would appear on one of the spreadsheets, but does not identify where or which. In the absence of evidence showing where that money went. I am satisfied that it is a hidden asset. 52. In Appendix 22 to Volume 1 Flap 2 confiscation bundle is yet another document recovered from the same source as the previous documents. The Crown rely solely upon the figure of \u00a3200,000 as a hidden asset. The defendant asserts that the document shows that \u00a3200,000 is owed to him but was not paid. I do not accept that. It Is clear on the face of the document that there are sums of money owed, but the \u00a3200,000 is distinguished from those by the terminology used. The defendant needs to explain where this has gone, He does not do so. I am satisfied that this is a hidden asset. The defendant also contends that there is double counting of some sums. However, it is clear from the document that those figures are separate for the \u00a3200,000. 53. In Appendix 23 to Volume 1 Flap 2 Confiscation bundle is a document recovered from the same source as the previous documents. They show receipts on 18th December 2009 and 1st February 2010 Totalling \u00a331,000. I accept that the \u00a317.000 on 1st February is duplicated in Appendix 2 A above. Consequently, only \u00a314000 is included in the hidden assets figure. There Is no evidence that this was dissipated by way of payment of duty as the defendant alleges. 54. Consequently, the hidden assets in respect of Purvinder Briah is \u00a3605,814.91.\u201d The appeal 25 The appeal, as we have already indicated, is limited to two grounds. 26 The\u00a0first ground contends that the\u00a0judge failed to engage with certain evidence relating to the\u00a0payments out by the\u00a0appellant to HMRC, as reflected in the\u00a0documents available and recovered from the\u00a0memory stick. In particular, the\u00a0appellant produced a\u00a0copy of four cheque stubs said to show payments to HMRC as follows: (i) a payment dated 2\u00a0July\u00a02011 in the\u00a0sum of \u00a319,212.69; (ii) a payment dated 20\u00a0August\u00a02012 in the\u00a0sum of \u00a321,691.05; (iii) a payment 4\u00a0February\u00a02014 in the\u00a0sum of \u00a3528.95, and\u00a0 (iv) a payment dated 1\u00a0July\u00a02016 in the\u00a0sum of \u00a3882.60. The\u00a0total comes to \u00a342,675.34. The appellant contends this sum should have been deducted but was not. 27 When the\u00a0cheque stub evidence was produced, the\u00a0cheque stubs were illegible, and the\u00a0prosecution was not prepared to engage with that evidence in consequence. Subsequently however, Ms\u00a0Bracken provided clearer copies of those documents and, as far as she was concerned, there was no further challenge to them. She submitted that the judge was in error therefore in failing to accept that those sums were properly to be deducted from the\u00a0hidden assets in\u00a0question. We do not criticise the\u00a0judge for not placing reliance on the\u00a0cheque stub evidence in the\u00a0circumstances that applied at the time. The\u00a0appellant did not give evidence to explain that the cheque stubs reflected sums paid to HMRC and there was no evidence at that stage to that effect. Steps could have been taken, but were not taken, to secure HMRC's agreement that those sums were received. 28 However, Ms\u00a0Bracken makes the\u00a0point that this was an\u00a0HMRC led investigation so that HMRC were well placed to confirm the\u00a0veracity of the four payments. Indeed, in\u00a0August\u00a02021, having explored these matters in correspondence with HMRC, HMRC conceded that \u00a342,000 (odd) was received by HMRC in the form of four cheque payments as described. In light of that evidence, admitted as fresh evidence under section 23 of the\u00a01968 Act, the\u00a0Crown now accepts that \u00a342,000 (odd) should have been deducted from the sum of \u00a3212,150.74 referred to by the\u00a0judge at paragraph\u00a048, producing a\u00a0total sum of \u00a3169,475.40 in its place. We have been taken to the\u00a0various documents and are satisfied that the concession is rightly made. We accordingly allow the first ground of appeal. 29 The\u00a0second ground of appeal is based on an asserted\u00a0arithmetical error. Ms\u00a0Bracken submits that a\u00a0\u201cconcession\u201d was made by the\u00a0financial investigator in the\u00a0supplemental section 16 statement dated 21\u00a0September\u00a02018, at paragraph 11.12, in the\u00a0following terms: \u201cThe crown concede that there could feasibly be an element of double accounting in the figures at Appendix 2A to the s.16 prosecutor statement dated 18 August 2016. Having compared the\u00a0figures in Appendix\u00a02A and the\u00a0figures at Appendices 20 and 22 to the\u00a0same prosecutor statement, the\u00a0crown have removed the total of \u00a3118,650 from Appendix 2A to avoid any possibility of double counting\u201d. 30 Ms\u00a0Bracken submitted that despite this concession, made explicitly, the amount identified was not removed from the\u00a0final hidden asset figure arrived at by the\u00a0judge. Indeed, she referred us to paragraph 49 of the judgment where the\u00a0judge accepted that the\u00a0appendix 2A figure was a\u00a0lower figure than reality, but that none of the destinations of the monies had been sufficiently identified by the\u00a0appellant, and accordingly concluded that the\u00a0total amount of \u00a3180,650\u00a0did constitute hidden assets. Relying on the\u00a0financial investigator's methodology, she submitted that this\u00a0sum was included in the\u00a0methodology he described and the\u00a0ultimate figure arrived at by the judge was wrong in consequence. Although the\u00a0judge expressed his concern about excluding mathematical double counting, in fact the\u00a0error must have come about because he\u00a0took the\u00a0figure from the old section 16 statement, and then made specific deductions, but without any reference to paragraph 11.12 of the\u00a0financial investigator's statement. 31 She also submitted that four specific entries on appendix\u00a02A could be shown to reflect double counting, because those figures also appear on appendix\u00a022. The\u00a0entries are: (i) \u00a32,000 on 26\u00a0July\u00a02010 with a\u00a0reference P, reflecting a payment out to P; (ii) \u00a31,000 on the\u00a017\u00a0July\u00a02010, a payment out to Peter; (iii) \u00a35,000 on 11\u00a0August\u00a02010, a payment out to Peter and (iv) \u00a34,000 on 18\u00a0August\u00a02010, a payment out to P. This demonstrates that there was in fact double counting but is simply illustrative. Despite his care, the judge did not avoid double counting altogether. Accordingly, the total figure of \u00a3180,000 (odd) in appendix\u00a02A should have been further reduced to reflect these failures. 32 Despite the\u00a0care and clarity with which those submissions were advanced, we do not accept them. We prefer the\u00a0submissions made by Mr\u00a0Benson KC on this ground. We start, as he did, with the\u00a0context. These were POCA proceedings in which the\u00a0appellant did not give evidence or call any witness on his behalf. Before the\u00a0judge, his counsel attributed certain meanings to documents, but there was no evidence to support the interpretations so advanced. Indeed, the\u00a0court was not assisted by him at all as to the\u00a0value of his assets or as to what assets were available to him, despite the fact that the\u00a0true extent of his realisable assets was peculiarly within his own knowledge. Moreover, he had the\u00a0opportunity to explain any or all of the\u00a0documents found on the memory stick and produced at trial, by giving evidence about them. Instead, he denied all knowledge of them and chose not to give evidence at all. 33 In fact the\u00a0documents found reflect only a\u00a0partial picture as Mr\u00a0Benson emphasised. This is a point that the judge himself made. HOM\/105 related to a different period during the\u00a0three and a\u00a0half year conspiracy period. Appendix\u00a020 showed large amounts of cash going to the\u00a0appellant in the\u00a0year before the\u00a0alleged conspiracy began. Moreover, as Mr\u00a0Benson also emphasised, it was never accepted by the\u00a0Crown that the\u00a0amounts paid out to the\u00a0appellant were or should be treated as limited to the\u00a0entries identified as paid to Peter or P. 34 So far as the\u00a0appendix\u00a02A payments are concerned, it is true that the\u00a0financial investigator conceded that there could feasibly be an\u00a0element of double counting on the\u00a0figures in appendix\u00a02A, but the\u00a0judge made no reference to any such concession. We have been taken very carefully by Mr\u00a0Benson through each of the\u00a0documents that supported the\u00a0elements that made up the\u00a0hidden asset figure in the\u00a0judge's ruling. That exercise has demonstrated to us that there was in fact no double counting. 35 Taking them in turn, we deal first with the asset figure of \u00a3212,150.74 (albeit now reduced by reference to ground 1). This comprised payments set out at appendix 19 and was dealt with by the judge at paragraph 48 of his judgment. It is clear to us that this sum did not include any sum taken from appendix 2A or HOM\/105. 36 The next figure (dealt with at\u00a0paragraph 49 of the ruling) is the\u00a0HOM\/105 appendix\u00a02A figure itself. Appendix 2A is a\u00a0schedule of payments. The\u00a0Crown continues not to accept that these were the only payments, but they are payments totalling \u00a3118,640. We shall return to the\u00a0four amounts to which Ms\u00a0Bracken referred shortly. 37 So far as the\u00a0appendix\u00a020 figure of \u00a3106,185\u00a0is concerned (dealt with at paragraph 50 of the\u00a0ruling), it relates to the\u00a0period 2009 and, again, we are satisfied that the\u00a0only amount that could conceivably have been double counted would have been the\u00a0sum of \u00a3150\u00a0on 3\u00a0February\u00a02010. But since the\u00a0judge only counted sums over \u00a3500 we are satisfied that it was not included and there was no double counting in relation to appendix\u00a020. 38 Next, appendix\u00a021 (dealt with by the\u00a0judge at paragraph 51) led to the\u00a0sum of \u00a37,784.17. Again, there is nothing in appendix 2A that appears there that could amount to double counting. The\u00a0same is true of appendix\u00a023 (dealt with at paragraph 53 by the\u00a0judge) in the\u00a0sum of \u00a314,000. That sum does not appear on appendix\u00a02A and there was no double counting. 39 That leaves appendix\u00a022, dealt with by the\u00a0judge at paragraph 52. The\u00a0judge took a\u00a0figure of \u00a3200,000 from HOM\/195\u00a0appendix 22. He based the\u00a0figure on an entry on that document that read as follows: \u201cSo as of 31\u00a0May\u00a02010 P still owed 50 for old AC and 150 for Abbott House. To P \u00a3200,000.\u201d That is the\u00a0figure that the\u00a0judge took. None of the\u00a0payments immediately below the\u00a0figure of \u00a3200,000 appear in appendix\u00a02A and there was no double counting in relation to those payments. 40 There is however an\u00a0entry in appendix\u00a022 under a\u00a0heading \u201cNew T and P from 1\u00a0June\u00a02010\u201d that reflects the\u00a0four sums to which we earlier referred (totalling \u00a312,000). In fact, those amounts appear under a\u00a0column that included other amounts as well that do not appear on appendix\u00a02A, and the\u00a0total amount in that\u00a0column is \u00a315,000. 41 Ms\u00a0Bracken submitted that the\u00a0presentation of this document is not as per the\u00a0original and that there were different headings. We have not been shown any other document that supports this submission. All we can do is look at the\u00a0documents available and the conclusions reached by the\u00a0judge, who expressed repeatedly his concern to ensure that there was no double counting. We can see where the\u00a0\u00a3200,000 came from. It related to a\u00a0period \u201cas of 31\u00a0May\u00a02010\u201d. The entries in appendix 22 related to a subsequent period. There was no evidence before the\u00a0judge, nor is there any evidence from the\u00a0appellant now, to the effect that the \u00a3200,000 total fell to be reduced by the\u00a0sums totalling \u00a312,000 in appendix 22 and nor are we prepared to draw such an inference now. It would be unsupported by evidence, and therefore quite wrong to do so. 42 As we have said, the\u00a0judge was faced with a\u00a0situation in which the\u00a0appellant did not give evidence to explain any of these points, as he could have done. He could have gone into the\u00a0witness box to say that the sum of \u00a3200,000 was not in fact paid to him despite the entry. He could have gone into the\u00a0witness box to say that the \u00a3200,000 was in fact subsequently reduced; or had been double counted in some specific way. He did none of these things. We have reached the\u00a0conclusion that we cannot safely infer that there was any double counting by reference to the\u00a0four amounts to which we have referred. Accordingly, this ground fails and is dismissed. 43 The\u00a0result is that the\u00a0appeal is allowed on ground 1 alone. The\u00a0available amount is reduced to reflect the\u00a0deduction of the sum of \u00a342,675.34, made up by the four HMRC cheques to which we have referred. The hidden asset\u00a0figure arrived at by the judge is quashed and for it is substituted a revised hidden asset figure of \u00a3169,475.40. To that extent only, the appeal is allowed. __________<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

\n

Sources officielles :<\/strong> consulter la page source<\/a><\/p>\n

Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: Introduction 1 On 22 March 2016, following a trial in the Crown Court at Blackfriars before HHJ Richardson and a jury, the appellant, Puvinder Singh Briah, was convicted of conspiracy to launder money and on 23 March 2016 he was convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. 2 There were four co-accused. Tajinder Padda…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"featured_media":0,"template":"","meta":{"_crdt_document":""},"kji_country":[7608],"kji_court":[8238],"kji_chamber":[],"kji_year":[32183],"kji_subject":[7612],"kji_keyword":[7633,11762,7622,15910,7621],"kji_language":[7611],"class_list":["post-652118","kji_decision","type-kji_decision","status-publish","hentry","kji_country-royaume-uni","kji_court-court-of-appeal-criminal-division","kji_year-32183","kji_subject-fiscal","kji_keyword-appellant","kji_keyword-appendix","kji_keyword-evidence","kji_keyword-figure","kji_keyword-judge","kji_language-anglais"],"yoast_head":"\nR v Puvinder Singh Briah - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"ru_RU\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"R v Puvinder Singh Briah\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: Introduction 1 On 22 March 2016, following a trial in the Crown Court at Blackfriars before HHJ Richardson and a jury, the appellant, Puvinder Singh Briah, was convicted of conspiracy to launder money and on 23 March 2016 he was convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. 2 There were four co-accused. Tajinder Padda...\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"21 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0430\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\\\/\",\"name\":\"R v Puvinder Singh Briah - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-04-22T20:31:39+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Jurisprudences\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/jurisprudences\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"R v Puvinder Singh Briah\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"description\":\"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Kohen Avocats\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"ru-RU\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/01\\\/Logo-2-1.webp\",\"width\":2114,\"height\":1253,\"caption\":\"Kohen Avocats\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/kohenavocats.com\\\/ru\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"}}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"R v Puvinder Singh Briah - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/","og_locale":"ru_RU","og_type":"article","og_title":"R v Puvinder Singh Briah","og_description":"LADY JUSTICE SIMLER: Introduction 1 On 22 March 2016, following a trial in the Crown Court at Blackfriars before HHJ Richardson and a jury, the appellant, Puvinder Singh Briah, was convicted of conspiracy to launder money and on 23 March 2016 he was convicted of conspiracy to pervert the course of public justice. 2 There were four co-accused. Tajinder Padda...","og_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/","og_site_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"\u041f\u0440\u0438\u043c\u0435\u0440\u043d\u043e\u0435 \u0432\u0440\u0435\u043c\u044f \u0434\u043b\u044f \u0447\u0442\u0435\u043d\u0438\u044f":"21 \u043c\u0438\u043d\u0443\u0442\u0430"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/","name":"R v Puvinder Singh Briah - Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-04-22T20:31:39+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"ru-RU","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/r-v-puvinder-singh-briah-2\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/avocats-en-droit-penal-a-paris-conseil-et-defense-strategique\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Jurisprudences","item":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/jurisprudences\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"R v Puvinder Singh Briah"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#website","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","name":"Kohen Avocats","description":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat p\u00e9naliste \u00e0 Paris, intervient exclusivement en droit p\u00e9nal pour la d\u00e9fense des particuliers, notamment en mati\u00e8re d\u2019accusations de viol. Il assure un accompagnement rigoureux d\u00e8s la garde \u00e0 vue jusqu\u2019\u00e0 la Cour d\u2019assises, veillant au strict respect des garanties proc\u00e9durales.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"ru-RU"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#organization","name":"Kohen Avocats","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"ru-RU","@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Logo-2-1.webp","width":2114,"height":1253,"caption":"Kohen Avocats"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}}]}},"jetpack_likes_enabled":false,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision\/652118","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_decision"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/kji_decision"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=652118"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"kji_country","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_country?post=652118"},{"taxonomy":"kji_court","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_court?post=652118"},{"taxonomy":"kji_chamber","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_chamber?post=652118"},{"taxonomy":"kji_year","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_year?post=652118"},{"taxonomy":"kji_subject","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_subject?post=652118"},{"taxonomy":"kji_keyword","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_keyword?post=652118"},{"taxonomy":"kji_language","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/ru\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/kji_language?post=652118"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}