Described in Chambers 2008 as “a rock and a staff to those instructing him”, and in Chambers 2009 as having “extensive experience of high-profile fraud cases”, and in Chambers UK 2010 as someone who "despite being a relatively young silk ... receives great support and widespread acknowledgement for the quality of his work." Rated in the ‘The Legal 500’ and described as “bright, steady and thoroughly nice”.

 

Mark Lucraft pursues a specialist fraud-based criminal practice both defending and prosecuting.

 

The beginning of his career was marked by instructions in a number of the largest cases of the 1980’s and 1990’s: the tail end of the cases arising out of the Johnson-Matthey collapse, and then the investigation and prosecutions arising from ‘Barlow Clowes’ and Maxwell.

 

Since then he has been instructed in a number of other cases by the Serious Fraud Office [SFO]: R.v. Dannis Cheung (investment fraud), R.v. Stone & Mottram (fraud on gas and oil exploration company) and he was part of the team instructed in one of the largest and most complex cases the SFO has taken on, the investigation into the generic drugs market (R.v. O’Neill and others). Despite the ending of the case, it remains good authority and best practice on a number of crucial issues, such as disclosure of vast amounts of electronic material and the use of section 3(5) CJA 1987 powers to disclose material to third parties. He is currently advising the SFO on an investigation into a suspected "boiler room" fraud.

 

He was instructed by the CPS in the autumn of 2004 to join the team instructed to prosecute Network Rail, Balfour Beatty and various personnel employed by them for manslaughter and health and safety offences arising out of the Hatfield rail crash in October 2000.

 

He is instructed by the Office of Fair Trading [OFT] to lead the prosecution of four employees of British Airways for alleged price fixing on airline passenger fuel surcharges [R v Martin George and others] - the trial is lised to start in April 2010. He was instructed by the OFT to prosecute the first criminal case brought under section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (R v Peter Whittle and others [2008] EWCA Crim 2560).

 

Before taking silk, he was on the 'A' list of the Attorney General's panel of prosecution counsel and was regularly instructed to prosecute for the Inland Revenue/HM Revenue & Customs (which became the RCPO and is now part of the CPS). Many of the cases undertaken for the then Inland Revenue have involved prosecuting professionally qualified people. Customs cases include both VAT and drugs prosecutions.

 

In terms of defence work, he has been instructed in a whole range of fraud cases: mortgage fraud, pension fraud, MTIC fraud, investment fraud, overseas corruption and money laundering. Many of his instructions are for cases in which FPS, CPS or the SFO are prosecuting. He is currently instructed to represent a company director accused of tax fraud and also a company director accused of exporting weapons from one third party country to another in breach of trade and export control regulations, and in another case a man accused as being part of a large scale MTIC fraud.

 

He has also prosecuted and defended in cases arising out of serious road traffic accidents where death has resulted. In silk he has received instructions in a number of road traffic cases spanning a wide range of issues from allegations of causing death by dangerous driving and drink driving, to issues over driving licences and the status of a road. This work compliments his position as one of the editors to the Encyclopedia of Road Traffic Law and Practice and as one of the practitioner editors to the road traffic chapter in Archbold.

 

He is one of the barrister members of the Standards Committee of the Bar Standards Board. He is one of the Vice-Chairmen of the Remuneration Committee of the Bar Council. He is the Chambers Treasurer and Chairman of the General Management Committee of Chambers and the Finance Committee. He sits as a Recorder in the Crown Court and as a Legal Assessor for the General Optical Council.

 

Publications

Cases of Note

R.v. I [2010] EWCA Crim 376

Prosecutor’s appeal on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and section 14 of that Act and the requirement for orders to be made within two years of conviction or for applications for extension of time on the basis of exceptional circumstances to be listed within that time period.

Ferdhaus [2010] EWCA Crim 220

Appeal against conviction raising issues over bad character issues between defendants.

IB v. R [2009] EWCA Crim 2575

Interlocutory appeal in relation to the jurisdiction of the Crown Court to try offences contrary to section 188 of the Enterprise Act 2002.

R. v. Briggs-Price  [2009] UKHL 19
Appearing in the House of Lords on behalf of what was then RCPO (leading Tom Payne) where the appellant was seeking to overturn the decision of the Court of Appeal ([2008] EWCA Crim 146) to disallow his appeal against the order the trial judge on confiscation. The appellant had been convicted on 14 April 2003 of conspiracy to import heroin. He was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 20 years, subsequently reduced to a term of 17 years by the learned trial judge on May 8, 2003. In April 2004 the appellant pleaded guilty to a conspiracy to cheat the public revenue in relation to Excise Duty and Value Added Tax in relation to cigarettes for which he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4½ years concurrent to 17 years' imprisonment passed the previous year. On confiscation in June 2006 the learned judge made a confiscation order under the DTA 1994 in the sum of £2,628,490 with 8 years' imprisonment in default of payment. There was also an a confiscation order in the sum of £510,734 CJA 1988 with 5 years' imprisonment in default of payment (concurrent to the default sentence in relation to the DTA 1994). The total of the orders amounted to £3,129,224 and this was to be paid by October 31, 2007. On April 29, 2009 the House of Lords handed down its judgement ([2009] UKHL 19). The judgment, dismissing the appeal by Briggs-Price, confirms that in confiscation proceedings it is open to the prosecution to prove the derivation of benefit from drug trafficking by proving the commission of other specific drug trafficking with which the defendant has not been indicted. To do so does not violate the presumption of innocence. The assessment of benefit by the application of assumptions under DTA 1994 does not amount to a form of procedural safeguard for a defendant. The assumptions are a tool which is presumptively to be used but which is neither mandatory nor exclusive.

 

R v Hugh Rodley and others (Snaresbrook Crown Court, 04.03.2009): Successfully defended a Swedish-born and Canary Islands-based businesswoman - Inger Malmros - accused of being party to a conspiracy to defraud Sumitomo Banking Corporation of some £229 million and of conspiracy to launder those monies. Other defendants in the trial included two computer experts and an employee of the company concerned with security at the bank. SWIFT messages were created to transfer monies to bank accounts around the world.

R v Ian Meadows and others (18.01.08, Crown Court): Successfully defending a mortgage advisor working for Savills who was  accused as part of a three handed case of taking part in a buy-to-let mortgage fraud that was said to involve over 100 properties.

R v David Dalrymple (27.09.07, Crown Court): Defending in a prosecution  brought by RCPO concerning a company director, whose co-defendant (the finance director) pleaded guilty and gave evidence for the Crown. Confiscation issues in the case continue in the High Court.

R v Chavda (29.06.07, Crown Court): Prosecuting Pradip Chavda, who was convicted of fraud for deceiving investors into parting with £500 000 into a non-existent student housing scheme.   There were many losers from within the Asian community who did not wish it known publicly that they had been ‘duped’.   Advising on losers to be traced and enquiries to be conducted overseas in Dubai, India and the Far East where it was thought the defendant may have moved funds.  Following conviction he advised on confiscation proceedings that concluded in September 2008 with a confiscation order in excess of £2.7 million and 6 years' imprisonment in default.  

R v Thompson & Hanson (22.11.06, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division) The Times, December 6, 2006 [2007] 1 Cr.App.R 15 [2006] EWCA Crim 2849: Defending in a case prosecuted by what was then the RCPO. Dismissal applications were successful on the main count before the trial judge. This was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal considered the legislation on prosecution appeals from ‘terminating’ rulings. The respondents argued successfully that the terminating ruling provisions did not apply to dismissals.  The Court of Appeal refused the Crown’s application as it did not have jurisdiction under s.58 of the 2003 Act to give leave to appeal against a ruling under Schedule. 3 paragraph. 2 of the 1998 Act.  
 

R v O'Neill and others (26.04.06, Crown Court): Acted for the SFO in the prosecution against nine pharmaceutical executives and five companies over an alleged pricing cartel said to have defrauded the NHS of millions of pounds. The case has involved a number of satellite issues including the question of disclosure by the SFO to other government departments, e.g. R (Kent Pharmaceuticals Ltd) v Director of the SFO (18.11.04, Court of Appeal) The Times, 18 November 2004.

He has provided written advice in what is an increasingly common feature of large prosecutions where prosecutors have to give careful consideration to balancing the interests of justice against their responsibility to pass relevant information to other agencies.   His involvement in this case makes him one of the few counsel qualified to give advice on this extremely sensitive and developing area of the law.

Revenue & Customs Prosecutions Office v Hill, Hill and others (20.12.05, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division) [2005] EWCA Crim 3271 [2006] S.T.I. 161 Times, December 27, 2005: Acting for what was then the RCPO in seeking to overturn a decision of the Crown Court to discharge a restraint order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 where the Crown Court had previously made the restraint order. The appeal was successful. The test to make a restraint order was whether an investigation had begun into an offence which took place after the Act came into effect on March 4, 2003. If the investigation is ongoing, as in this case, the time at which the test is to be applied is when the application is made not when the investigation began.

 

R (Alamieyeseigha) v Crown Prosecution Service (25.11.05, High Court / Administrative Court): Prosecuting the Governor of the Bayelsa state in Nigeria for money-laundering.  The case involved advising on (i) money laundering, (ii) corruption, (iii) issues of diplomatic and state immunity, and working with officers of the Metropolitan Police and officers investigating corruption in Nigeria. At the Crown Court there were lengthy proceedings to deal with whether the defendant should be granted bail, and whether he should be allowed to return to Nigeria to run his state. Both the State Attorney General and the Federal Attorney General gave evidence before the Crown Court.

The High Court rejected a claim of judicial review on behalf of the applicant, Alamieyeseigha, the Governor of Bayelsa State in Nigeria. He had sought to challenge the decision to prosecute him for money laundering offences on the basis that he was entitled to State Immunity. After eight days of deliberations the court ruled that he had no entitlement to state immunity, and that his state, Bayelsa, which was described as a sub-state and not sovereign, equally had no right to immunity.
 
The judge outlined the claimant's submission that there are five criteria which are necessary to determine if a federal state such as Bayelsa is entitled to state immunity. Among these are that the sovereignty in question has been divided; that the sub-state enjoys substantial and genuine autonomy; that it (sub-state) has substantial competence over traditional government functions within its territory which is not subject to the intervention of the federal government; that such autonomy and competence are irrevocable in the absence of consent of the sub-state as necessary; and that it is not a necessary pre-condition for qualification for immunity that the sub-state possesses foreign relations power. The judge also said that Bayelsa was not a sovereign state that possessed an international personality and that Bayelsa and thus the claimant were not entitled to immunity own under international law.

R v Stannard (01.11.05, Court of Appeal - Criminal Division) [2005] EWCA Crim 2717: Prosecuting Michael Stannard, a tax barrister, who represented himself at trial followed by proceedings for a confiscation order.   This was an appeal against that confiscation order. The fraud had operated by way of a company purchase scheme where a company with unpaid corporation tax liability was targeted for acquisition. Steps were then taken to reduce that tax liability by false debenture documents, which purported to show that debentures in substantial sums had been subscribed for and interest paid in advance. The purchaser of the company thereby obtained a financial advantage. The trial judge had held that a company controlled by the appellant had operated such a scheme in relation to two companies, and that he had obtained a benefit in the sum of £3,099,030. The decision of the Crown Court was upheld and he was ordered to pay £1,678,954 under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s. 71.

S submitted that the confiscation order should be quashed because he had not benefited as a result of or in connection with the offences as he was merely the beneficiary of a discretionary trust and not a shareholder of either of the companies, and it was inappropriate to lift the corporate veil. Dismissing the appeal, the court held that on the evidence before him, the trial judge had been entitled to find that S had a controlling interest in the two companies and that it was appropriate to lift the corporate veil. The fact that the purchases of the companies were genuine transactions at arm's length did not preclude a finding that it was a fraudulent scheme devised by S and entirely under his control.