A Lautoka man had his sentenced reduced in the High Court in Lautoka on Wednesday after he won his appeal against an earlier sentence.

The appellant, Prashil Prakash, was charged with two counts of money laundering and was convicted on one count after trial.

He appealed on the grounds that the sentence was excessive and wrong in principle. It was alleged that Prakash received $350 while knowing or ought to have reasonably known that the money was derived directly or indirectly from some form of unlawful activity.

He was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months. During the initial trial the first prosecution witness testified that in April 2012 he discovered that an unauthorised electronic transfer of $350 was made from his Westpac bank account to another customer’s account.

He reported the matter to the bank and the Police.

Investigations revealed that the amount was transferred to Prakash’s account after which it was transferred to his sister’s account and then withdrawn on the same day using an ATM card.

In her evidence, Prakash’s sister said that her brother had requested to use her account as he did not have an access card to his Westpac account.

Her evidence was that he had used her account on previous occasions and after withdrawal the money was sent electronically to a Barry Green in England through Western Union.

The appellant did not dispute that he received $350 into his bank account.

He claimed that he did not know the money was proceeds of crime.

He contended that he was scammed into believing that he was engaged in a genuine business transaction with an overseas businessman.

The prosecution led evidence of the manner in which the money was siphoned overseas using the sister’s account within a short period of time after the appellant had received it in his account.

They also led evidence of an email from the appellant to Mr Green that read: “It’s a pleasure working with you. Sir, I hope that now you can trust me with larger amounts as well. I will not have any problems cleaning it for you on my side.”

Justice Daniel Goundar said the sentence imposed by the learned magistrate was manifestly excessive.

He said the primary purpose of the sentence for money laundering was general deterrence and imposed a term of nine months’ imprisonment to reflect the seriousness of the appellant’s criminal conduct.

Edited by George Kulamaiwasa