Select a region
A Royal Court Commissioner has dismissed the complaint of a town jeweller found guilty of laundering money, describing it as “scurrilous,” and rejected his fourth application for bail.
Darius Pearce (49) is currently in custody at HMP La Moye as he awaits sentencing on 5 July for his money laundering offences.
He was found guilty in December at the end of a week-long trial, after he received cash from members of a criminal gang on three occasions in 2019.
He then bought gold with the cash from London bullion dealers, which was then quickly transferred back to cash.
Pictured: Members of the drugs ring Pearce had been associated with, were jailed in September.
Pearce was arrested a day after the plot was foiled but, unlike the others, maintained his innocence.
Last week, Pearce appeared before the Royal Court Commissioner to request that the saisie judiciaire - a property forfeit order - to be amended, arguing that he didn’t own any properties, and therefore didn’t have to comply with it.
He said all the assets in his jewellery shop had been transferred to his brother, and the assets from his gaming shop to his cousin, before his trial so that he could focus on his defence.
In his judgment, the Commissioner noted the saisie “expressly” required Pearce to give details of all transfert of assets over £500 which he had made, or someone else had made on his behalf, since 3 October 2013.
“The fact that the Defendant may have transferred or procured the transfer of assets prior to the date upon which the saisie judiciaire was imposed in no way relieves him of his obligation to give full details of all of those prior transfers,” he wrote.
Pictured: Pearce's former shop in the market.
He went on to say that during the hearing Pearce had explained in detail how he had dealt with some assets, and therefore should be “perfectly capable” of doing the same in writing, and having it confirmed on oath by way of affidavit, as required by the saisie.
Commissioner Clyde-Smith amended the document to request Pearce provide “details of the assets and businesses of JOT Ltd and of any transfers of those assets and businesses by JOT Ltd since [3rd October 2013]” and gave Pearce 14 days to provide the information to the viscount.
During the hearing, Pearce also applied for Crown Advocate Matthew Maletroit to be found in contempt of Court and that he be remanded in custody until such time as he had purged his contempt, suggesting he hadn’t sent Pearce the case law he was going to be relying on during sentencing.
The Crown Advocate said the representation was “appalling”, as the Crown had made “every possible effort” to provide Pearce and his lawyers with the Crown's conclusions, the sentencing range, along with authorities as well as the summary of facts “well before” the deadline set by the Court.
The Commissioner noted Pearce had acknowledged having received the documents, adding that his complaint appeared to be that he should have received copies of each case referred to in the Crown’s conclusions in full, rather than extracts.
He said he had “no hesitation” in confirming Crown Advocate Maletroit had complied with the Court order and set aside Pearce’s complaint, describing it as “scurrilous”.
Pictured: Pearce (49) is currently in custody at HMP La Moye as he awaits sentencing on 5 July for money laundering offences.
Finally, the Commissioner rejected Pearce’s fourth bail application saying he had failed to prove any “exceptional circumstances” than would justify it.
Pearce had argued he had already served more time in prison that what his sentence would be, and that he wasn’t able to effectively represent himself from his prison cell.
He also indicated he would be applying for his appeal to be dealt with by "trial by combat," and that there were therefore no grounds to keep him in custody in the meantime, given that the outcome of the appeal would either be his death or his freedom.
Commissioner Clyde-Smith however said that information provided by the Law Society showed Pearce was being represented by a lawyer for his sentencing, his appeal as well as his confiscation hearing.
Comments
Comments on this story express the views of the commentator only, not Bailiwick Publishing. We are unable to guarantee the accuracy of any of those comments.