R v William Godley
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Gloster LJ |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 2014 |
| Neutral Citation | [2014] EWHC 2343 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: T20067525 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
| Date | 14 November 2014 |
[2014] EWHC 2343 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BLACKFRIARS CROWN COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Lady Justice Gloster
Case No: T20067525
Mrs Alison Clare and Ms Lisa Freeman (instructed by the Serious Fraud Office) for the Prosecution
Mr Simon Csoka QC (instructed by Rahman Ravelli Solicitors) for the Defendant
Hearing dates: Monday 14 April 2014
Background
This is my judgment in relation to confiscation proceedings brought by the Crown against William Godley ("Mr Godley") and heard by me in April 2014. Mr Godley was born on 10 February 1948. He is married to Anne Godley. They have four children: David Godley, Christopher Godley, Kevin Godley and Kim Taylor. Both Mr and Mrs Godley resided in Portugal at the date of the confiscation hearing.
On 27 June 2007 in the Crown Court at Blackfriars William Godley represented at that time by Mr James Sturman QC, leading Mr Edward Henry, pleaded guilty before me to one offence of conspiracy to defraud contrary to common law. The particulars of that offence were that Mr Godley together with Jared Brook, Lincoln Fraser, Nicholas Fraser and Robert Raven (who was subsequently severed from the indictment) conspired between 1 January 1998 and 30 June 2002 to defraud investors in investments schemes established, promoted and operated by the Imperial Consolidated Group of companies ("Imperial"). The conspiracy was what is commonly known as a Ponzi scheme and, as a result of the scheme, investors from around the world were defrauded of millions of pounds.
The prosecution's case against Mr Godley which led to his conviction was as follows:
i) From 1997 to June 2002 Imperial promoted numerous offshore investment funds through a worldwide group of companies from its headquarters at Binbrook in Lincolnshire. The products promoted were offshore investments based in Caribbean jurisdictions. Sales offices, introducers and financial advisors promoted these schemes worldwide and investors often invested life savings on the promise of guaranteed high returns with no risk to the capital invested.
ii) Investors in Imperial were assured that their investment was deployed into secure and highly profitable lending businesses run by Imperial mainly in the UK. Monthly statements were sent to investors purporting to show that their investment had grown as promised. In reality less than half of the investor funds received by Imperial were loaned out by the UK businesses and those businesses were not generating profits. Investors' funds were dissipated on the costs of running the Imperial network of companies, large commissions paid to introducers, continued subsidising of unsuccessful businesses and high salaries and benefits paid to management.
iii) The prosecution alleged that the Imperial scheme could therefore only continue if investors retained their confidence in it and continued to invest. Once this confidence was lost large numbers of investors sought to redeem their investment and the scheme collapsed in June 2002. The administrators of Imperial estimate that only a tiny percentage of investors' funds will be recovered.
iv) The prosecution alleged that Mr Brook and Mr Fraser were the controlling minds of the fraud. Mr Godley was at the next rank of seniority. He was a director of the principal fund raising companies in the Bahamas and was Head of International Sales. With a large network of contacts in the financial services industry worldwide, he facilitated the successful sale of Imperial investments to hundreds of wealthy clients, particularly in the USA and Commonwealth countries.
v) In April 2001 Mr Godley moved to Imperial's new office in Mayfair and became chief executive officer. Imperial continued to solicit investment with promises of high yields. The UK companies continued to run at a loss. Meanwhile, the Grenadian authorities had found Imperium Bank, a related Imperial company, to be insolvent.
vi) The Caribbean fund raising companies were placed into liquidation in July 2002. The UK companies went into voluntary administration on 10 June 2002. Over £150 million was owing to investors.
At the time Mr Godley entered his plea of guilty in April 2007, leading counsel then acting on his behalf, with the agreement of the prosecution, invited the court to adjourn his sentencing hearing until completion of the trial on the basis that, as stated by Mr Godley's counsel he understood that he would be sentenced, ultimately, according to the evidence given at the trial and, in particular, that any issue in relation to the extent of his involvement in the conspiracy would be resolved by reference to the evidence and used at trial.
The first trial concluded in October 2008. Mr Nicholas Fraser was acquitted on the one charge then before the jury, but the jury failed to agree on their verdicts in relation to Mr Brook and Mr Fraser.
On 30 April 2009, at a preparatory hearing before the re-trial of Mr Brook and Mr Fraser, leading counsel then acting on Mr Godley's behalf, Mr Peter Doyle QC invited the court to defer sentencing of Mr Godley until after the re-trial. The basis upon which that submission was made was, once again, that it was only after hearing the evidence in the first trial that the court would be in an informed position to assess Mr Godley's culpability and the extent of his involvement in the fraud over the indictment period, namely January 1998 to June 2002. The prosecution, however, opposed any delay in Mr Godley's sentencing. Nonetheless I acceded to Mr Doyle's submissions and adjourned Mr Godley sentencing to the conclusion of the re-trial. By that stage the original indictment was amended so that the original single conspiracy count was expanded into two counts: the first to reflect the alleged criminal conduct over the entire period of the indictment from January 1998 to June 2002 and the second conspiracy count to reflect a conspiracy running from a later inception date of 1 May 2000 to an end date of June 2002.
The retrial concluded at the end of June 2010. The jury acquitted Mr Brook and Mr Fraser of count one (namely the original single conspiracy count reflecting the alleged criminal conduct over the entire period of the indictment from January 1998 to June 2002) but could not agree in relation to their guilt in relation to the later period (namely from the later inception date of 1 May 2000 to June 2002.
On 5 August 2010 I sentenced Mr Godley to a term of three-and-a-half years' imprisonment and disqualified him from being a company director for six years. At the time of sentence he was represented by Mr Doyle QC and his junior, Mr Keating and different solicitors, Messrs Hodge Jones and Allen. Although at the time of pleading guilty in April 2007, Mr Godley had pleaded guilty to an offence with a date range of 1 January 1998 to 30 June 2002, at the point of sentencing on 5 August 2010, having heard the evidence in the trials as against his co-accused, I was not satisfied to the criminal standard that Mr Godley had been party to a criminal conspiracy within Imperial from as early 1 January 1998. However I was satisfied to the criminal standard that from at the latest, by "November or December 1999, early 2000", Mr Godley had conspired with his co-defendants to defraud investors. In my lengthy sentencing remarks, which followed detailed submissions both by Mr Doyle and by the prosecution in relation to Mr Godley's involvement, I set out my conclusions on the evidence which I had heard in both trials as to the extent of Mr Godley's role and as to the period during which I found him to have been involved in the conspiracy. I refer below in greater detail to what I concluded.
Shortly after his conviction 27 June 2007, the prosecution issued confiscation proceedings against Mr Godley under section 71 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1993 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 1995) ("the 1988 Act"). For various reasons it was common ground that these could not take place pending the outstanding trial against his co-defendants. The relevant provisions of the 1988 Act to which I refer in this judgment are those which were in force at the relevant time in relation to these confiscation proceedings.
Following various delays thereafter, the reasons for which it is not necessary to rehearse, the confiscation hearing was finally fixed to take place in June 2011. In his response dated 25 March 2011 to the prosecution's statement of information made in accordance with section 73 of the 1988 Act dated 22 November 2010, Mr Godley accepted that he had benefited as a result of or in connection with the commission of the index offence pursuant to section 71(1A) of the 1988 Act in the sum of £1,811,899.30.
However, shortly before the hearing, the prosecution were informed that Mr Doyle QC and Mr Keating had withdrawn from the case. They had apparently been asked to advise as to whether Mr Godley had received incorrect advice to plead guilty on the issue of mens rea and also as to whether there was any reason to query his plea of guilty on the basis that, in the light of discussions in which had place at a meeting between representatives from the prosecution, the Serious Fraud Office, and those previously representing Mr Godley, there was an agreement with the SFO to preserve his home from the confiscation proceedings. Mr Doyle QC and Mr Keating advised Mr Godley as to the possibility of applying to vacate his plea if it had been entered on a false premise as to the required mens rea for the offence of conspiracy to defraud. They also advised him on the possibility of making an abuse of process application in relation to the alleged agreement as to the future of the Portuguese home. Ultimately, however, they advised that they could...
To continue reading
Request your trial