Laurence Grant

Laurence qualified as a solicitor in 1997. He is recognised as a VHCC ( Very High Costs Case) Supervisor and Grade A Fee Earner for fraud and non fraud cases He is a recommended lawyer in the 2022 and 2021 editions of the Legal 500.

Laurence specialises in representing clients in complex and high value financial crime matters. He has extensive experience in defending matters prosecuted and investigated by the FCA, HMRC, SFO, NCA, UKBA, City of London Police, Economic Crime Units, Local Authorities and Trading Standards. He has achieved outstanding results for his clients in some of the biggest prosecutions ever brought in the UK.

Laurence recognises that Confiscation and POCA (and subsequent related legislation) proceedings are an integral and inseparable aspect of high value financial crime. He has worked with Simon Connolly for nearly 15 years in this area and together they have been involved in cases of huge high financial value and complexity. As a team and as individuals they are considered to operate in the elite sphere of this niche area by both clients and their peers. Aside from post conviction Confiscation proceedings, they regularly represent clients in post order applications (S22 and 23 POCA 2002 , AFO (Account Freezing Order) applications, 3rd Party proceedings under Section 10a of the Serious Crime Act, Enforcement Proceedings and Restraint matters.

With over 28 years of experience representing clients at police stations and in interviews under caution, Laurence takes a hands-on approach from the very outset of cases. He continues to represent clients in the most serious cases at interviews under caution and provides ongoing advice and assistance at pre charge stage.

Laurence has a national client base and represents clients in all parts of the UK.

Notable Cases for Laurence Grant and Simon Connolly

Fraud and Money Laundering
R v M (Birmingham Crown Court)
Currently acting for Defendant being prosecuted by the Environment Agency who faces allegations of fraudulent trading, fraud and unlawful disposal of waste. The Prosecution alleges industrial levels of unlawful waste disposal in this case which is set down for trial in 2024.

R v M (Southwark Crown Court)
Currently act for Defendant in HMRC Prosecution for evasion of excise duty. This matter involving allegations that the Defendant was responsible for operating a fuel laundering plant is already in its 7th year since Defendants were arrested and the trial is listed for 2025.

R v R (Birmingham Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Evade Excise Duty The Defendant was arrested in August of 2014 and ultimately found Not Guilty in December 2019. 2 Operation Barcelona was an HMRC investigation into alcohol diversion fraud. The loss alleged was over £1.8 million of evaded duty. The Crown relied on 8,000 pages of served evidence at trial with many thousands more being served as unused material. Seven Defendants were charged on the indictment and only one other Defendant was acquitted at trial.

R v H (Kingston Crown Court)
Money Laundering Operation Bayweek was an HMRC Investigation and prosecution which spanned 3 decades and focussed upon smuggling and money laundering offences in multiple jurisdictions involving high ranking members of terrorist organisations. The Defendant was the lead Defendant in the final trial which concluded in July 2021.

R v T (Woolwich Crown Court)
Fraud The Defendant was the lead Defendant in a multi-million pound European Distribution Fraud, which extended to multiple EU countries and was orchestrated in the UK. The Defendant is the last remaining Defendant to be sentenced.

R v C and C (Blackfriars Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Defraud (Operation Falcon) The Defendant had the leading role in a Romanian Organised Crime Group (OCG) which ran a highly sophisticated online shopping fraud. The OCG was highly developed and was split into different cells to deal with the forgery of documents, the creation of false identities, the setting up of personal and business bank accounts, the creation of advertisements and the laundering of money. The fraud was in excess of £1 million. His wife who we also represented, faced a number of associated money laundering charges. Both Defendants were found not guilty of every contested count during the trial. MC was acquitted of one offence at trial charged under section 327 of POCA 2002. AC was found not guilty at trial in respect of all money laundering offences made against her.

R v H (Southwark Crown Court)
Carbon Credit Fraud T.his was the first ever Prosecution for Carbon Credit MTIC fraud and the loss to HMRC was £38 million. The fraud resulted in the suspension of the trading system in Carbon Credits that the EU had adopted. Following a trial that spanned 5 months the Defendant was acquitted.

R v D (Norwich Crown Court)
Fraud and Money Laundering Represented the wife of a notorious con man who had previously deceived the entire art world on an art forgery fraud. The Defendant and her husband both faced charges in these proceedings and the husband sacked 3 legal teams before ultimately standing trial on his own. The Defendant was acquitted following a trial that lasted from October until February.

R v W (Bristol Crown Court)
MTIC Fraud Represented lead Defendant in Operation Ginseng proceedings, one of biggest mobile phone MTIC investigations in the UK. Proceedings against the Defendant were discontinued following an aggressive strategy of pursuing disclosure.

Confiscation Proceedings
R v S (Isleworth Crown Court)
This D was alleged to be part of the International OCG that targeted a number of celebrities including Tamara Ecclestone, Frank and Christine Lampard and Vichai Srivaddhanprabha in a series of high value burglaries. Although acquitted for the main substantive offence he was found Guilty of a related money laundering offence and faced Confiscation Proceedings. The case went to a final hearing where the Crown instructed Treasury Counsel and alleged benefit and available amount figures in excess of £1,000,000. The case was highly complex and involved unique issues surrounding the valuation of counterfeit currency as well as arguments concerning hidden assets, remainder interests in overseas property and residual interests in pension assets. Following argument a final order was made in the sums of £2394 benefit and £500 available.

R v A (Manchester Minshull Street Crown Court)
Human Trafficking This matter was the first of its kind in the United Kingdom which determined the issue of a Defendant having received a benefit in respect of confiscation proceedings as a result of keeping a domestic slave. No such legal argument had been previously determined before any Crown Court or Higher Courts in the United Kingdom and this case was the first case in which the legal argument had been submitted. This matter was extremely high profile and enjoyed a significant amount of media attention from the BBC and from other national and local press due to its unique background and the legal issues which were being determined. The case has been described as a ‘landmark’ case.

R v H (Kingston Crown Court)
Money Laundering POCA The Crown in their original section 16 statement submitted that the Defendant had benefited in excess of £1 million from the money laundering offence alone. After the service of a detailed section 17 statement and after extensive negotiations with the Prosecution, we were successful in challenging the purported benefit obtained and it was accepted that his benefit from the offence was only £6,000 and his overall general criminal conduct was deemed to be only £75,945.71. The matter concluded in July 2022.

R v L (Isleworth Crown Court)
Conspiracy to arrange or facilitate travel with a view to exploit prostitutes and conspiracy to control prostitutes Following the service of the s.18 statement it was successfully demonstrated that the Crown should discontinue the confiscation proceedings. The proceedings were discontinued in September 2022.

R v U (Birmingham Crown Court)
Money Laundering This matter was extremely high profile and included a documentary from Channel 4 called Busting the Drugs Millions: Inside the National Crime Agency due to its unique background and the value of money that was laundered. 5 The Prosecution alleged that the Defendant had benefited from his general criminal conduct in excess of £120 million and that he held ‘hidden assets’ to the same value of the benefit figure. After the service of the Defendant’s extensive section 17 statements and other supporting work product, the Crown accepted that the Defendant’s available amount was only £54,000 (later reduced to £13,000 by a section 23 application in March 2019) and that the Defendant’s benefit from his general criminal conduct should be reduced by over £33 million.

R v C (Birmingham Crown Court)
MTIC Fraud Simon Connolly was the Solicitor who had day to day care and conduct in which the Prosecution sought a Confiscation Order in the sum of £197 million. However, upon the case being determined at a final hearing with various legal arguments being heard, an Order was eventually made in the sum of just over £106,000. The Confiscation Order was later reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal.

R v P (Central Criminal Court)
Money Laundering The Defendant was subject to confiscation proceedings following his conviction for money laundering offences to the value of £60 million. This was an operation conducted by HMRC. There are 18 related operations by HMRC dating back to 2006 involving the investigation of a number of organised crime groups for alcohol diversion fraud, money laundering, cigarette smuggling, importation and distribution of Class B controlled drugs and the purchase of real estate in Spain for the purposes of money laundering. There were a number of highly complex issues involved including the calculation of benefit, apportionment of recoverable amounts, hidden assets, tainted gifts, disclosure, piercing the corporate veil and third party interests to name some of the features involved.

R v N (Stafford Crown Court)
Modern Slavery Act 2015 The confiscation case was very unusual and complex as it focussed on the unique set of circumstances of a Defendant having purportedly received benefit in respect of exploiting victims and forcing them to perform forced or compulsory labour. This matter was extremely high profile and enjoyed a significant amount of media attention from the BBC documentary programme called ‘The Prosecutors’ and from other national and local press due to its unique background and the legal issues which were being determined. The Crown alleged that the Defendant’s benefit from his ‘General Criminal Conduct’ was £534,574.41. After the service of a detailed section 17 statement challenging the purported benefit obtained; the Crown later conceded that their original calculation was flawed, and they later accepted that the Defendant’s benefit was only £150,000.

R v D (Northampton Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Supply Controlled a Drug of Class A It was the Crown’s contention in their section 16(3) statement that the Defendant had benefited in excess of £13 million from his general criminal conduct. The Defendant’s benefit figure was accepted to be only £3,119,150.00 instead of the £13,252,330.16 which was submitted by the Crown in their section 16(3) statement thereby reducing any Order made by over £10 million.

R v L (Maidstone Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Import a Controlled Drug of Class A Having received a custodial sentence for his involvement in the conspiracy, the Crown alleged that he had benefited from his ‘general criminal conduct’ in the sum of £441,000 and he had identifiable assets in excess of £106,000 and that he also had ‘hidden assets’. However, the Crown eventually accepted our legal submissions that the defendant’s benefit figure should only be £1,000 and not the £441,000 submitted by the Crown in their original section 16(3) statement. As a consequence, a Confiscation Order was certified by the Court for the sum of £1,000.

R v H (Birmingham Crown Court)
Money Laundering The Crown alleged that AH had benefited from his ‘general criminal conduct’ in the sum of £4.8 million and that he held identifiable assets in excess of £2.3 million and that he also held ‘hidden assets’ abroad. However, the proceedings concluded by consent after the Crown accepted the Defence’s submissions that his benefit figure should be only £313,022.17. This is a reduction of over 93% of the Crown’s original benefit figure. Furthermore, the Order was subject to the R v Ahmed provisions which resulted in the Defendant paying back less than £200,000.

R v O’S (Southwark Crown Court)
Possession of Criminal Property and Acquiring Criminal Property 7 The Crown alleged the Defendant had benefited in excess of £3.8 million from his ‘general criminal conduct’ and held assets over £3.5 million including holding assets in Nigeria. However, after the service of the Defendant’s extensive section 17 statements and other supporting work product the Crown accepted that the Defendant had only benefited in the sum of £700,000.

R v Z (Birmingham Crown Court)
Money Laundering The Prosecution submitted that the Defendant had benefited from his proceeds of crime in excess of some £2.3 million and had ‘hidden assets’ to the same value of the benefit figure. This case involved the process of laundering funds via the scheme of ‘cuckoo smurfing’. The Crown eventually accepted through the detailed legal submissions contained within the section 17 statement that the defendant’s benefit from the conviction was only £36,000 and not the £1.8 million as submitted in their original section 16(3) statement. The confiscation proceedings concluded by consent for just over £59,505.00 and the Crown also accepted that the Defendant did not have any ‘hidden assets’.

R v A (Leeds Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Supply Class A Drugs The Crown submitted that the Defendant was the lead conspirator in the supply and importation of a multi-million pound consignment of Class A drugs across Yorkshire. The Crown submitted that the Defendant’s ‘general criminal conduct’ was in excess of £1 million and he also held assets in the same sum. However, we were successful in illustrating to the Court and Crown that the defendant’s benefit figure should be reduced to only £170,179.68 and that he only had assets in the sum of £25,594.36.

R v S (Kingston Crown Court)
MTIC Fraud Following the service of the s.18 statement it was successfully demonstrated that the Crown should discontinue the confiscation proceedings. Notwithstanding, the significant role the Defendant had as a freight forwarder within the conspiracy.

R v N (Leeds Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Import Class A Drugs The Crown contended that the Defendant’s benefit was in excess of £600,000 and that the 8 Defendant had assets in the same amount. Due to the legal submissions detailed in the Defendant’s section 17 statement, the Crown accepted the benefit figure should be reduced by some £300,000 and a nominal order of £1.00 should be paid. R v S (Birmingham Crown Court) Producing a Controlled Drug of Class B The Crown contended that the Defendant’s benefit from his criminal conduct was in excess of £814,000 and that the Defendant had assets in excess of £674,000. However, after highlighting the deficiencies in the Crown’s approach, we were successful in demonstrating that the defendant’s benefit from his ‘general criminal conduct’ should be reduced to only £67,000 and that his assets totalled £89,452.00. As a result, an order was made in the lower sum (the benefit figure) for only £67,000.

R v A (Birmingham Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Commit Fraud by False Representation The case related to the systematic ‘clocking’ of a significant number of motor vehicles for financial gain. The Prosecution alleged that the Defendant had benefited from his general criminal conduct in excess of £750,000 and that he held assets in excess of £37,000. However, we were successful in demonstrating that the defendant’s benefit from his ‘general criminal conduct’ should be reduced to only £91,500 and we were successful in demonstrating that the Defendant’s available amount should be significantly reduced. As a result, an order was made for just over £14,000.

R v R (Stafford Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Supply Class A Drugs (Operation Nemesis) The contested confiscation hearing in relation to this matter lasted 9 days. The Judge gave a written judgment on the matter and found the Defendant’s benefit figure to be only £284,432 instead of the original £409,980.00 which was submitted by the Crown in their original section 16(3) statement. Moreover, despite the Crown asserting during the contested hearing about the burden regarding ‘hidden assets’ the Judge found in favour of the submissions contained within the section 17 and found that the Defendant’s available amount was nil and therefore only a Confiscation Order in the sum of £1.00 was made against our client.

R v L (St Albans Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Supply Controlled a Drug of Class B As a result of the preparation we undertook in the case, the Crown eventually accepted the legal submissions contained within our s.17 statement and that the Defendant’s benefit figure should be reduced to £90,000 and not the £364,000 submitted by the Crown in their original section 16(3) statement thereby reducing the benefit figure by over 75%. The Crown also submitted that the Defendant’s total known assets were over £258,507.80 with an interest in his partner’s property. It was later conceded by the Crown due to the evidence that we presented that his assets totalled only £72,529.93.

R v T (Fraudulently Evading Income Tax)
Peterborough Crown Court Instructed only after the Defendant was sentenced and confiscation proceedings had commenced. Prior to instruction, the Crown asserted that the Defendant had benefited from his general criminal conduct and therefore submitted that the ‘statutory assumptions’ should be utilised. However, upon considering legal submissions in the Defendant’s response statement, the Crown accepted that the benefit figure should be limited to only the Defendant’s particular criminal conduct or more commonly known as the benefit arising from the offence itself. The focus then quickly switched to the Prosecution’s submissions relating to the assets held by the Defendant which involved assets (both property and bank accounts) being held abroad. The Prosecution asserted in their first statement that the Defendant’s asset total was at least £380,000 and they also amended their position late in the proceedings to assert that the Defendant in fact had hidden assets which we had to try and demonstrate was false. The Defendant owned a property in France and there was significant dispute regarding the valuation of the same between the parties. The matter concluded on the 10th December 2019 and the Order was made for only £64,490.43.

R v Q (Various Fraud Offences including Fraudulent Trading)
Warwick Crown Court The Prosecution served a section 16 statement which indicated that the Defendant had an interest in a property and that he had purposely misled the Court by not declaring this 10 interest. This was a serious allegation that was made against the Defendant with there being severe consequences of a financial nature and potentially criminal proceedings that could follow if it was deemed to be correct. As a result, it was of paramount importance that the true nature of the Defendant’s assets was presented. The Crown in their section 16 statement purported that his available assets was in excess of £70,000. We were able to demonstrate through a mixture of legal arguments and documentary evidence served during the course of the proceedings that the Defendant’s interest in the property (house) was nil and an Order was subsequently made against the Defendant for only £250.00.

R v K and H (Offences relating to Waste Disposal)
Guildford Crown Court Following proceedings brought by Surrey Heath Borough Council both Mr K and Mr H pleaded guilty to offences relating to waste disposal, escape of waste, transfer of waste and operating a business otherwise than authorised under an environmental permit. According to the Prosecution, the Defendants carried out waste disposal and other activities following the issue of a stop notice. Mr K’s benefit figure was accepted to be only £129,953 instead of the purported £223,669.48 which was submitted by the Prosecution in their section 16(3) statement. Mr K’s available amount was deemed to be £14,380.00. Mr H’s benefit figure was accepted to be only £129,953 instead of the alleged £341,112.20. This is a reduction of over 60% of the overall benefit figure. Mr H’s available amount was deemed to be £86,350.00.

Serious Drug Supply And EncroChat Cases
R v K (Leicester Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs The Defendant is one of 50 defendants on the indictment as a result of Operation Carter (deriving from the Operation Venetic hack of EncroChat). The case involves multiple conspiracies to supply class A controlled substances and is in progress. The trial is due to take place in February 2023.

R v YO (Croydon Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs The Defendant is charged with conspiracy to supply class A drugs as a result of Operation Alfreda (deriving from the Operation Venetic hack of EncroChat). The trial is due to take place in January 2024.

R v B (Isleworth Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Import Class B drug and Conspiracy to Supply Class B drug According to the original section 16 statement the Defendant’s purported benefit figure was £221,980.55 and his available amount was deemed to be £49,680.39. The Defendant was also subject to an Account Freezing Order involving monies held by him personally and monies held by a Limited Company. The matter involved the Defendant having received a ‘bounce back’ loan as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic which demonstrated the complex nature of the proceedings. According to the original section 16 statement the Defendant’s purported benefit figure was £221,980.55 and his available amount was deemed to be £49,680.39. In December 2021, it was certified by the Court that his benefit figure from his General Criminal Conduct should be £195,000 and his available amount should only be £4,463.36 and not the £49,680.39 as first submitted by the Crown.

R v M (Harrow Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Supply Class A and Class B drugs and Money Laundering Offences. According to the original section 16 statement, the Defendant’s purported benefit figure was £91,622 and his available amount was deemed to be at least £22,000. The Prosecution relied heavily on EncroChat material to secure a conviction against the Defendant. After extensive negotiations were undertaken, it was certified by the Court that his benefit figure from his General Criminal Conduct should be limited to £40,000 and his available amount should only be £4,000.

R v E (Harrow Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Supply Class A We represented RE in respect of his confiscation proceedings following his conviction for drug offences. According to the Crown’s section 16 statement, on the 24th June 2021,the defendant was sentenced to eight years and 8 months for Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs. The Prosecution relied heavily on EncroChat material to secure a conviction against the Defendant. The Crown had purported that the Defendant had assets belonging to him in the sum of at least £20,756.95. The complexity of the case surrounded that an asset was purchased with the monies used from a ‘bounce back’ loan. We were able to demonstrate that the Defendant’s available amount for the purposes of his Confiscation Order should be only £1,363. This was a reduction in the alleged available amount of 90%.

R v K (Harrow Crown Court)
Possession with Intent to Supply Class A drugs 15 The Defendant was charged with possession with intent to supply the drug of cocaine. After making submissions about the strength of evidence against our client, the Prosecution offered no evidence against the Defendant in relation to this count on the 1st day of trial.

R v Q (Cardiff Crown Court)
Conspiracy to Supply Class A drugs (Operation Kinsfolk) Represented lead Defendant in Conspiracy to Supply Class A Prosecution, investigated by SOCA in Kent, Dorset and Wales. The Confiscation proceedings were particularly complex and had the unique feature of the Crown relying on a will to make assumptions under The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

Other Serious Offences
R v G (Wolverhampton Crown Court)
Acting for a client in a case classed as a category VHCC by the Legal Aid Agency involving serious sex offence allegations. Both Laurence Grant and Simon Connolly are recognised as Grade A VHCC fee earners by the Legal Aid Agency when dealing with VHCC matters and Laurence is recognised as an VHCC Supervisor.

R v S
High profile terrorist case resulting from an attack on an Indian General who was in charge of Operation Blue Star in 1984 (Indian Government’s operation to take control of the Golden Temple).