Central Chambers Law

£3 Million Tobacco Duty Fraud Conspiracy

case summary

All details are accurate to the date of publishing case files

Charges

Conspiracy to Defraud HMRC (Duty Evasion)

Statute

Fraud Act 2006

Outcome

Active Case: Awaiting Trial

Case Details

Primary Practice Area:

Criminal Law

Secondary Practice Area:

Fraud & Financial Crime

Court Name:

Leicester Crown Court

Charges

The defendant is charged with Conspiracy to Commit Fraud by False Representation, contrary to the Fraud Act 2006.

‍

Specifically, the indictment alleges that the defendant conspired with six others to defraud His Majesty of duty payable on a vast quantity of imported tobacco products. The prosecution contends that the group was "knowingly concerned" in the dealing of goods subject to import restrictions—namely cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco—with the specific intent to evade the excise duty due to the Revenue.

Situation

This case arises from a major intelligence-led operation by police and HMRC. Officers executed raids on multiple locations, including rented storage units and vehicles, uncovering an industrial-scale stockpile of illicit tobacco.

‍

The total seizure included over 5.5 million Richmond Blue King Size cigarettes, 1.3 million NZ Gold cigarettes, and over 500kg of Shisha tobacco. The prosecution estimates the total value of the seized goods to exceed £3.4 million, with the duty evaded running into the millions. The defendant was interviewed following the raids and subsequently charged as a key figure in the alleged conspiracy.

Defence Strategy

Current Status: Pre-Trial Strategy

‍

We are currently representing the defendant in these ongoing proceedings at Leicester Crown Court. The defence team, led by Fosia Jury with counsel Irfan Arif, is rigorously examining the Crown's attribution evidence.

‍

In complex conspiracy cases of this magnitude, the defence strategy focuses on dissecting the chain of evidence linking the individual defendant to the storage units and the broader conspiracy. We are currently challenging the prosecution's assertions regarding the defendant's specific role and knowledge of the operation.