Superior Number Sentencing - fraud.
[2012]JRC177
Royal Court
(Samedi)
5 October 2012
|
Before :
|
Sir Christopher Pitchers, Commissioner, and
Jurats Morgan, Fisher, Kerley, Marett-Crosby and Nicolle.
|
The Attorney General
-v-
John Tasker Lewis
Ian Michael Christmas
Russell Philip Foot
James Cameron
Sentencing by the
Superior Number of the Royal Court, following conviction at Assize trial on the
13th July, 2012, on the following charges:
John Tasker Lewis
|
12 counts of:
|
Fraudulent inducement to invest, contrary to
Article 2(c) of the Investors (Prevention of Fraud)(Jersey) Law 1967 (Counts
2, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 26 and 27).
|
|
1 count of:
|
Fraudulent inducement to lend money,
contrary to Article 2(a)(i) of the Investors (Prevention of Fraud)(Jersey
Law 1967 (Count 4).
|
Age: 58.
Plea: Not guilty.
Details of Offence:
In 2004 and 2005 the four defendants
set out to speculate on US residential property in the states of Florida and
Colorado. Lewis and Christmas did
so together through a company called De Lec Limited. Lewis, Foot and Cameron did so together
through a company called Sunstone Holdings Ltd.
The initial idea was to acquire
properties off-plan and in a rising property market, (at that time appreciating
by between 10 and 15% per annum), then either sell the property or assign the
purchase rights at considerable profit at the end of the build.
The defendants had little money of
their own, but leveraged the properties with very substantial sums borrowed
from US banks and raised from Jersey investors.
Over the Indictment period, (2004 to
2008), the four defendants between them either bought or reserved a grand total
of 82 US properties, of which they completed on the purchase of 38. In the course of their activities they
between them borrowed a total of $16.5 million in mortgages from US banks and
raised some £5.3 million from a total of 57 Jersey people, amongst whom
were the 19 victims in the case.
Neither De Lec nor Sunstone had any
income stream. The more US property
that was bought, the more money the defendants needed to find simply to pay the
costs attendant upon owning the properties, such as mortgage interest payments,
utility bills, association fees, as well as to make so-called profit or
interest payments to existing investors to whom they had promised a
return. Within 2 years of starting
to acquire properties, the De Lec portfolio run by Lewis and Christmas, and
that of Sunstone run by Lewis, Foot and Cameron, were each costing some half a
million US Dollars a year to hold, whilst the properties themselves were
earning only a fraction of that in rental income to defray the cost.
The defendants needed to obtain
money from somewhere to meet the shortfall and to service these debts if the
entire business of both De Lec and Sunstone was not to become insolvent. They obtained it in large measure from
Jersey investors, and did so by misleading them about what their money would be
spent on.
Christmas was the Assistant
Magistrate at the time he offended.
Lewis, Foot and Cameron were all independent financial advisers trading
under the name Goldridge Stone, which was regulated by the Jersey Financial
Services Commission. Almost all the
victims were existing Goldridge Stone clients who trusted Lewis, Foot and
Cameron as their financial advisers.
The majority of the victims were
told by various of the defendants, both verbally and in written “Joint
Venture Agreements” that the funds they were investing would be used
directly to pay deposits to acquire specific Florida or Colorado properties
from the developer, and they invested on that basis. In fact their funds were used by the
defendants to pay whatever bills, liabilities or commitments required immediate
settlement. Many of the properties
which the investors were told they were investing in were never ultimately
acquired.
The schemes thus required fresh
money from new or existing investors to keep from collapse as well as to honour
the promises that had been made to earlier investors. The defendants did not raise sufficient
funds by selling properties or by re-mortgaging to meet such liabilities. In 2006 the US market stalled. In 2007 it stagnated and then crashed in
the sub-prime crisis. Having misled
investors recklessly throughout 2005 and 2006, by 2007 Lewis, Cameron and Foot
began consciously misleading investors by lying to them that Sunstone was
successful and by concealing the truth that it was a failed venture on the
brink of imminent collapse.
In early 2008 the Jersey Financial
Services Commission launched an investigation into Lewis, Foot and
Cameron. Shortly thereafter the
police became involved, and the defendants’ activities were brought to a
halt.
As a consequence, from a total of
£5.3 million invested by Jersey people overall, some £4.2 million
was lost. Over the guilty counts on
the Indictment, the victims paid a grand total of £1.2 million into the
schemes, of which more than £1.1 million was lost.
Lewis, Foot and Cameron benefitted
personally from their offences.
From investor funds across the guilty counts Lewis paid himself
personally some £83,500. Foot
paid himself £117,250 and Cameron paid himself £123,400,
representing a total of 27% of all the money invested. None of the victims had been told that
their money would be so used.
Across the investments as a whole,
all the defendants benefitted personally, including Christmas – though
this was not a case of “high-living” at investors’
expense.
Christmas committed jointly with
Lewis a single offence of recklessly misleading an elderly widow into paying
£100,000 to De Lec, (Count 2), he having signed the written agreement
which confirmed what the defendant Lewis had told her, namely that her money would
pay the deposits to acquire two US properties. In fact it was spent on other things
entirely.
Lewis, Foot and Cameron committed a
series of offences from 2004 to 2006 of recklessly misleading investors by
telling them verbally and in the written agreements that their money would pay
the deposits to acquire specific US properties. In fact the money was spent on other
things, including paying mortgages on Jersey properties and on bank-rolling
Sunstone’s existing debts and obligations.
In addition Lewis was convicted of
knowingly misleading two investors into parting with a total of £185,000,
(Counts 4, 26 and 27), Foot was convicted of knowingly misleading two investors
into parting with a total of £220,000, (Counts 24, 26 and 27), and
Cameron was convicted of knowingly misleading one investor into parting with a
total of £160,000, (Counts 26 and 27).
Details of Mitigation:
Lack of previous, or previous
relevant, convictions.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 2:
|
15 months’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 4:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 7:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 8:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 9:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 12:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 13:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 15:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 16:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 17:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 18:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 26:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 27:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
Total: 4½ years’
imprisonment.
Confiscation Hearing to be
postponed under Article 6 for a date to be fixed.
Compensation Hearing to be
adjourned and considered at the same time as the Confiscation Hearing.
Disqualification sought from being
a Director, member of the council of a Foundation et cetera for a period of 12
years.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
The defendants’
businesses had no income to meet their growing expenses except for new
investors. Each new investor’s money had to be used towards the overall
expenses of the business and to fulfil the promises already made to earlier
investors. Investors had been
misled by the whole transaction in which they had participated. They believed they were getting an
interest in bricks and mortar when in reality they were not, and would only
receive one if everything went well for a significant period of time. The business model was hopelessly flawed
and was never corrected, even when its shortcomings were apparent to the
defendants.
The inducement
statements made by the defendants to the investors, both verbal and written,
were recklessly misleading from the beginning and grew more reckless as the
financial position of De Lec and Sunstone worsened until, in the case of Lewis,
Foot and Cameron, the financial state of Sunstone was such that it was out and
out dishonesty to take money from anyone.
Christmas’s
involvement was greater than his counsel contended for. That he held judicial office at the time
he offended was an aggravating feature, and his involvement in De Lec had been
inappropriate for a serving judge.
He had fallen below the particularly high standards required of those
holding important public office. He
had signed Mrs Cotrel’s agreement as part of the inducement process,
knowing it did not present the true picture. A suspended prison sentence would be
quite wrong in principle.
Lewis, Foot and
Cameron offended recklessly over a protracted period, and dishonestly towards
the end – and to a grave degree – with their final victim. The Court had determined the length of
sentence in each of their cases by looking at the totality of their
conduct.
It was a matter of
great seriousness that all the victims were ordinary people whose lives had
been altered for the worse, and forever by the defendants’
behaviour.
The Court had regard
in mitigation to previous good character, to the fact that this was not a case
of high living at investors’ expense, and to the suffering that a prison
sentence would inflict “not only on the guilty, who deserve it, but also
on their families who do not”.
|
Count 2:
|
18 months’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 4:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 7:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 8:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 9:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 12:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 13:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 15:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 16:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 17:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 18:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 26:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 27:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
Total: 4½
years’ imprisonment.
Confiscation Hearing to be
postponed under Article 6 for a date to be fixed.
Compensation Hearing to be
adjourned and to be considered at the same time as the Confiscation Hearing.
Disqualification from being a
Director, member of the council of a Foundation et cetera for a period of 8
years from the date of sentencing.
Ian Michael Christmas
|
1 count of:
|
Fraudulent inducement to invest, contrary to
Article 2(c) of the Investors (Prevention of Fraud)(Jersey) Law 1967 (Count
2).
|
Age: 65.
Plea: Not guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Lewis above.
Details of Mitigation:
None.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 2:
|
15 months’ imprisonment.
|
Confiscation Hearing to be
postponed under Article 6 for a date to be fixed.
Compensation Hearing to be
adjourned and considered at the same time as the Confiscation Hearing.
Disqualification sought
from being a Director or a member of the council of a Foundation for a period
of 5 years.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
See Lewis above.
|
Count 2:
|
15 months’ imprisonment.
|
Confiscation Hearing to be
postponed under Article 6 for a date to be fixed.
Compensation Hearing to be
adjourned and to be considered at the same time as the Confiscation Hearing.
Disqualification from
being a Director or a member of the council of a Foundation for a period of 4
years from the date of sentencing.
Russell Philip Foot
|
2 counts of:
|
Fraudulent inducement to lend money,
contrary to Article 2(a)(i) of the Investors (Prevention of Fraud)(Jersey)
Law 1967 (Counts 6 and 24).
|
|
11 counts of:
|
Fraudulent inducement to invest, contrary to
Article 2(c) of the Investors (Prevention of Fraud)(Jersey Law 1967 (Counts
7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 19, 21, 23, 26 and 27).
|
Age: 54.
Plea: Not guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Lewis above.
Details of Mitigation:
Lack of previous, or previous
relevant convictions.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 6:
|
18 months’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 7:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 10:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 11:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 12:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 13:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 14:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 19:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 21:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 23:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 24:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 26:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 27:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
Total: 4½ years’
imprisonment.
Confiscation Hearing to be
postponed under Article 6 for a date to be fixed.
Compensation Hearing to be
adjourned and considered at the same time as the Confiscation Hearing.
Disqualification sought
from being a Director or a member of the council of a Foundation for a period
of 12 years.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
See Lewis above.
|
Count 6:
|
18 months’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 7:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 10:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 11:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 12:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 13:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 14:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 19:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 21:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 23:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 24:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 26:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 27:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
Total: 4½
years’ imprisonment.
Confiscation Hearing to be
postponed under Article 6 for a date to be fixed.
Compensation Hearing to be
adjourned and to be considered at the same time as the Confiscation Hearing.
Disqualification from
being a Director or a member of the council of a Foundation for a period of 8
years from the date of sentencing.
James Cameron
|
16 counts of:
|
Fraudulent inducement to invest, contrary to
Article 2(c) of the Investors (Prevention of Fraud)(Jersey) Law 1967 (Counts
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, 26 and 27).
|
Age: 53.
Plea: Not guilty.
Details of Offence:
See Lewis above.
Details of Mitigation:
Lack of previous, or previous
convictions.
Previous Convictions:
None.
Conclusions:
|
Count 7:
|
3 years’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 8:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 9:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 10:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 11:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 12:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 13:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 14:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 15:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 16:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 17:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 18:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 21:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 23:
|
3 years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 26:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 27:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
Total: 4½ years’
imprisonment.
Confiscation Hearing to be
postponed under Article 6 for a date to be fixed.
Compensation Hearing to be
adjourned and considered at the same time as the Confiscation Hearing.
Disqualification sought
from being a Director or a member of the council of a Foundation for a period
of 12 years.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
See Lewis above.
|
Count 7:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment.
|
|
Count 8:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 9:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 10:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 11:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 12:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 13:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 14:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 15:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 16:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 17:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 18:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 21:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 23:
|
2½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
|
Count 26:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment, concurrent.
|
|
Count 27:
|
4½ years’ imprisonment,
concurrent.
|
Total: 4½
years’ imprisonment.
Confiscation Hearing to be
postponed under Article 6 for a date to be fixed.
Compensation Hearing to be
adjourned and to be considered at the same time as the Confiscation Hearing.
Disqualification from
being a Director or a member of the council of a Foundation for a period of 8
years from the date of sentencing.
M. T. Jowitt, Esq., Crown Advocate.
Advocate S. A. Pearmain for Lewis.
Advocate R. J. MacRae for Christmas.
Advocate R. Tremoceiro for Foot.
Advocate M. L. Preston for Cameron.
JUDGMENT
THEcommissioner:
1.
The
defendants were charged with inducing investors to part with their money by
making false or misleading statements either knowing them to be false or misleading
or being reckless as to whether they were false or misleading. As I said to the jurats during the
summing up, and as Advocate MacRae has reminded us, these defendants are not
charged with facilitating imprudent investments. It may well be that most if not all
people would think that to encourage or persuade people of relatively modest
means to invest all or a significant proportion of their savings in off-plan foreign
property, was imprudent in the extreme but that is not the offence. However, once the offence is committed
it is relevant that the impact of the loss on these investors was a serious one
and a seriously aggravating factor.
Again, the fact that the investors lost all or most of their money does
not by itself make the defendants guilty of any offence.
2.
We also
make clear that we accept, and this is accepted by all the jurats today and was
accepted by the trial jurats, that however flawed the whole scheme was,
certainly in the early days, the defendants hoped that this scheme was an easy
way to riches for everyone, not just themselves but also the investors. The majority of the allegations on the
Indictment that were proved were proved on the basis that misleading statements
were made recklessly. That was
proved on clear evidence. The basic
business model was hopelessly flawed. The jurats in the trial considered
whether the business model written by Eric Evans in January 2004 could properly
be said, as was argued by the defence of Ian Christmas, to have been the basis
of the business in the United States.
They rejected that defence assertion and it is rejected again as part of
the sentencing process. That
business plan clearly relates to UK property, properly capitalised and tenanted
so as to produce a proper cash flow.
Eric Evans’ later emails about the US property scheme shows that
that to be so.
3.
The United
States business had no other outside source of income, apart from one loan, to
meet its growing expenses except for new investors. Each new investor’s money had to
be put towards the overall expense of acquiring property to fulfil the promises
made to other investors and to keep all of those promises afloat. It is important also to remember that it
was quite clear as they gave their evidence, that the investors in this scheme
believed they were getting an interest in bricks and mortar and that gave them
a sense of security, but they were not getting an interest in bricks and
mortar. They would only acquire
that interest if everything went well for a significant period of time. They were misled by the whole
transaction. The JVA was, as Ian
Christmas recognised, extremely misleading.
4.
The
defendants had done little or no research into what difficulties might arise
and how they would meet those difficulties if they did. No allowance was made for the impact of
capital gains tax, for any difficulties in re-mortgaging, any difficulties in
selling, the possibility of a change in the exchange rate, the absence of an
obligation to complete by the builders, the possibility of the stalling of the
property market. It did not need a
property crash to bring the whole edifice down. When the difficulties did emerge, no
changes were made to the plan but the defendants continued to operate in
exactly the same way. Even though
at the beginning they may have hoped to complete, they must have foreseen from
the beginning that there was a risk they would not and that they would not be
able to fulfil their promises. It
was unreasonable to take that risk with these investors’ money without
telling them the truth about the true nature of their investment and the true
way that the business was to be conducted.
5.
The
defendants were told of the flawed nature of the business plan from the
beginning. The sentencing court has
had placed before it, as was the trial court, of an email from Ian Christmas in
September 2004 indicating that he understood that the joint venture agreement,
the (“JVA”), did not reflect the true position and needed amendment
if investors were not to be misled by it.
No amendment was ever made.
Almost at the same time Eric Evans sent an email to Messrs Lewis and
Christmas pointing out that using only cash for investors without any other
cash flow was ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ and he said in his oral
evidence that he voiced these concerns on several occasions.
6.
As the jurats
found, the statements to investors, both orally and in writing, via the JVA were
reckless from the beginning. The
degree of recklessness increased as the financial position of De Lec and then
Sunstone, got worse. However there
came a point where the businesses were so mired in debt and the position with
the US properties so hopeless that it was out and out dishonesty to take money
from anyone and that was reflected by the jurats at trial by no longer
convicting of offences of reckless, misleading statements but convicting of
knowingly making misleading statements.
From late 2006 there is a series of emails, which have been placed
before us by the Crown, as they were before the trial court, passing between
the three defendants Lewis, Cameron and Foot acknowledging in colourful terms
the hopeless financial situation they were in but still they took
investor’s money. By the end
no honest representation could be made to an investor because had it been, that
potential investor would have run a mile, so the defendants had no option if
they wanted to continue to bring in money but to lie and that was what they
did.
7.
Turning to
mitigation we of course take account of the good characters of all defendants
which are mitigation in this as in any other case. We also take account of the sad fact
that, as is often the case, the suffering that a prison sentence will cause
will fall not only on the guilty who deserve it, but also on their families who
do not. We also approach the case
in fairness to the defendants on the basis that this, although it did involve
the defendants’, certainly the main three defendants, withdrawing money
for themselves this is not a case of high living. I turn now to deal with the individual
roles.
8.
Ian
Christmas, your role in this business was obviously smaller than that of the
other three and in relation to Count 2 than John Lewis in particular but in the
judgment of the jurats, having heard the evidence, it was greater than was
contended for on your behalf, both at the trial and again in mitigation. Eric Evans said you were in the office most
days, at the end of the court day.
It was not simply a matter of your signing letters drafted for you, we
saw a series of detailed emails dealing with business matters. In July 2006 you wrote of speaking of
your ‘huge investment in time and commitment’ in the business. When Eric Evans resigned in exasperation
he warned you that as a Magistrate you were in an exposed position, he invited
you to break with Lewis but you chose to stay with the company. You were not in exactly the same
position as Eric Evans though of course there were similarities. For much of the time he was seriously
ill and for a crucial period of five to six months he was in hospital. He recognised the dangers and urged
action which was not taken. He
resigned and warned you of your position but you stayed on and, it has to be
said, although Count 2 was complete by then, you did nothing to ensure that
Marie Cotrel or anybody else for that matter involved in the investing, knew
what the true position of the company was.
On the specific count, Count 2, in considering the evidence on this Count
the jurats at trial were not satisfied to the required standard that the visit
that you made to her undoubtedly on one occasion was related to Count 2 so they
did not convict on the basis of that visit. However, they were satisfied that you
knew that anybody in respect of whom the JVA had been signed, would have been
promised an interest in property because that was agreed to be the way that the
business would be conducted and the Jurats were also satisfied that the signing
of the JVA was part of one transaction which you encouraged and took part
in. You knew that the JVA that you
were signing did not present the true picture because you had said as much in
the earlier email. The jurats were
satisfied that you shared with John Lewis the reckless state of mind as to what
investors were told that I have already set out and that you knew that that
would have been the position of John Lewis when he spoke to Marie Cotrel prior
to the signing of the JVA.
9.
It is
quite true, and this is something that the Jurats have taken account of, that
your position as a Magistrate was not used to induce Marie Cotrell to invest
but that does not mean that the situation that you occupied is wholly
irrelevant to sentence.
Particularly high standards are rightly required of those who hold
important public office and you fell below those standards in committing Count
2. It is also relevant to the
consideration of the impact of your undoubtedly excellent character before
these events that in the course of these events you did begin to become
involved in the business in a way that was inappropriate for somebody holding
the office that you did.
10. So far as the other three of you are concerned
the jurats have considered whether a distinction should be drawn between you
and have concluded that that is not appropriate each of you continued to run
the businesses in the same way as the risk that what you said was misleading
grew and grew until any representation to investors ceased to be merely
reckless, it was clearly deliberately misleading, as is well evidenced by that
email of the 17th December, 2007, to which references have already
been made. Of course there are
differences, slight differences, between your cases. The amount of money was slightly
different as between each of you in terms of what you obtained. Lewis, you were involved in both
companies but the other two defendants, Foot and Cameron, were more deeply
involved in Sunstone, which of the two companies was even more recklessly run
than De Lec.
11. Some general points, we regard “knowingly”
committing these offences as particularly serious. When it came to the final counts, your ‘fleecing’
of Andrew Varney was as dishonest as it would have been if you had held up a
bank to get the money. The jurats
were satisfied in the trial that all three of you were present at the meeting
that Andrew Varney had in some of the offices that you were all then occupying,
and that the other two of you were aware of what was going on when Cameron was
speaking to him.
12. It is important to stress that one of the
reasons why these offences are so serious is because it is vital that those who
invest with professionals, whether they are regulated or unregulated in their
business, must have confidence that they are being given accurate and honest
advice and not being misled. But at
the heart of this case is something even more important. These victims, these investors who lost
their money, were ordinary people whose lives have been altered for the worse
forever by your reckless and your later dishonest behaviour and that is a
matter of great seriousness. These
were not people who could afford to lose the money that they lost.
13. Before turning to the sentences upon which the
jurats have decided, we adjourn the application by the Crown for confiscation
and compensation to a date to be fixed in accordance, as is necessary with confiscation,
with the appropriate statute.
14. The jurats have considered carefully whether
there is any alternative to a custodial sentence in this case and I have to
tell you at once that in each case they have concluded that there is no such
alternative.
15. In your case, Ian Christmas, I will deal with
you first. Obviously the jurats
considered anxiously the impact upon a man such as yourself of a custodial
sentence and thought anxiously as to whether it could be avoided but they have
concluded that, bearing in mind the nature of your involvement and the nature
of the position that you held, it would be quite wrong in principle to suspend
what is beyond question the appropriate sentence.
16. In your case for the one count that you face
will be a sentence of 15 months’ imprisonment as sought by the
Prosecution and you will be disqualified from acting as a director for a period
of 4 years.
17. I address the other three of you jointly
because the sentences that we impose are the same in total in each case. I have set out the aspects of the case
which the jurats regard as most serious, in particular the counts of knowingly
making misleading statements and inducing investment from that. The jurats have also considered the
appropriate sentences for reckless misstatement. There is no question that those are less
serious but they still are serious.
This is a case where the recklessness became worse and worse as the time
went on. However it is impossible, sensibly, to have a separate slightly
different sentence for each offence as it gets later in the chronology so
although there are shorter sentences as asked by the Crown for the earlier
offences, the later reckless offences, the jurats have looked at the totality of
the criminality in fixing concurrent sentences for each.
18. The sentences are these. For you John Lewis, Count 2; 18
months’ imprisonment, Count 4; 3 years’ imprisonment, Count 7, 8,
9, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17 and 18; 2½ years’ imprisonment, Counts 26
and Count 27, which we regard as the most serious on the Indictment; 4½
years’ imprisonment, as asked for by the Crown, all of those sentences to
be concurrent, making 4½ years in all.
19. In your case Russell Foot, Count 6; 18
months’ imprisonment, Counts 7, 10 to 14, 19, 21 and 23; 2½
years’ imprisonment on each, Counts 24, 26 and 27; 4½
years’, all of those concurrent.
20. In your case, James Cameron, Counts 7 to 18, 21
and 23; 2½ years’ imprisonment, Counts 26 and 27; 4½
years’ imprisonment, all concurrent with one another, making 4½
years in all.
21. In each of your cases you will be disqualified
from holding directorships for a total of 8 years, which if we are right in our
belief that that runs from today rather than from the conclusions of the
sentences but we proceed with that figure on the basis that it runs from
today.
22. Regarding Confiscation draft directions,
parties are at liberty to apply.
23. All bail applications are refused.
Authorities
Young-v-AG
1998/147.
AG-v-Renouf
2001/125.
R-v-Barrick [1985] 7 Cr. App. R. (S)
142.
Investors (Prevention of Fraud) Law
1967.
Companies (Jersey) Law 1991.