Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.
Socialite James Stunt has told his money laundering trial that he would have stopped large cash deliveries from taking place at his offices in London’s Mayfair “if anyone had raised an objection”.
Prosecutors cross-examined the former son-in-law of Formula 1 magnate Bernie Ecclestone on Friday after they accused him of being part of a scheme allowing criminals to funnel more than £200mn of “dirty money” into the banking system.
Jurors heard that Stunt had started a joint venture with Fowler Oldfield, a Bradford-based precious metals and jewellery dealer that prosecutors claim was a financial “gateway” for criminals between 2014 and 2016.
Testifying at Leeds Crown Court, Stunt acknowledged he allowed client cash from Fowler Oldfield to be delivered to his offices, but insisted he had no knowledge of criminality.
Jonathan Sandiford KC, for the prosecution, asked Stunt whether the sight of “men in helmets” from security company G4S delivering “large sums of cash” to his “plush Mayfair office” fitted with the image his company was seeking to project.
Stunt said: “If anyone had raised an objection that this was something untoward I would have shut [it] down immediately . . . There was no objection to this whatsoever.”
Asked by what means he had envisaged the cash was to be delivered, Stunt said: “Obviously, not a bin liner”. He added: “I don’t believe anyone would have come in looking like a hooligan.”
Stunt said he accepted that his company’s staff counted the cash, but “it [the money] wasn’t anything to do with Stunt and Co. It was Fowler Oldfield’s client cash.”
He added: “I had a financial interest in the joint venture and I was willing to assist.” But “I didn’t actually make any money [from it] — I lost money.”
Stunt, 42, who was previously married to Ecclestone’s daughter Petra for six years, is one of five individuals standing trial charged with money laundering.
The Ecclestones are not defendants and are not accused of any wrongdoing.
Prosecutors have claimed the scheme allowed unnamed criminals to circumvent financial due-diligence checks and hide the illicit sources of their funds, most of which were used to buy gold.
Stunt has insisted he had no knowledge of money laundering, telling jurors this week that at no stage did he suspect he was entering into an agreement to facilitate any such activity.
The defendants deny the charges and the trial continues.
https://www.ft.com/content/f14e0585-4013-4d05-9902-166ed7636671
