James Stunt: Breakdown of marriage to Petra Ecclestone may explain money-laundering involvement, trial told
s
Prosecutors told a jury that Ocelite James Stunt had become involved in a multi-million-pound money-laundering operation because the breakdown of his marriage to heiress Petra Ecclestone meant that the “river of money” from his family was “running dry”.
Stunt is one of eight defendants in a lawsuit over an alleged network that a court heard has deposited £266 million into the bank account of Bradford gold dealer Fowler Oldfield over two years.
Prosecutor Nicholas Clarke QC told a jury on Thursday that Stunt was married to the daughter of Formula 1 mogul Bernie Ecclestone and enjoyed “an extravagant lifestyle”.
James Stunt is no longer married to Petra Ecclestone and, given the breakdown in their marriage and the fact that the river of money from Ecclestone sources may be drying up, the financial future for James Stunt may appear less abundant to him. could have been
But he said the stunt’s “personal finances are shrouded in mystery”.
read more
Mr Clark said that, at the time of the programs being considered by the jury, the stunt was backed by his father-in-law’s estate and had access to his wife’s money.
He told the jury of some of the stunt’s outgoings, including a payment of more than £340,000 to the charity UNICEF and over £800,000 to the Lamborghini sports car company.
“There are also high-value art purchases from galleries and auction houses,” the prosecutor said.
He added: “They also had joint accounts, which were effectively unlimited resources.”
Mr Clarke said: “James Stunt is no longer married to Petra Ecclestone and, given the breakdown in their marriage and the fact that the river of money from Ecclestone sources is drying up, the financial future for James Stunt may be visible was less abundant than that.
“This could be an explanation as to why he got involved in a process that has proven to be involved in the laundering of millions of pounds of cash.”
Mr Clarke told the jury: “The documents provided by his lawyers attempted to portray him as a man of immense wealth with almost unlimited income and who could have had no probable motive to launder money.” “
James Stunt’s late brother Lee Stunt, right, seated, and other company employees are pictured at his brother’s office (CPS/PA) / PA Media allegedly counting money laundering.
But he said the information given by the stunt about his important assets was not shown in his tax return.
The prosecutor said the total taxable income of the declared stunt was only £444 for the tax year ending April 2015. And he said the return for the year 2016 showed only £10,000 of taxable income.
“These were the same years he and his employees were involved in banking millions of pounds of cash,” said Mr. Clark.
Prosecutors said Stunt’s proven personal wealth and lack of capital are demonstrated by the fact that he had to turn to his father-in-law, Bernie Ecclestone, for loan guarantees.
“If Stunt was the billionaire he claims, there would be no need for external guarantees at all,” he told the jury.
Mr Clark said Stunt was the “proprietor, sole director and controlling mind” of Stunt & Co Ltd.
Prosecutors said that, out of £266 million in cash and undisclosed deposits transferred through Fowler Oldfield’s bank account, £46.7 million was paid into the bank accounts of James Stunt and Stunt & Co.
Prosecutors said Stunt’s personal finances were ‘shrouded in mystery’ (Peter Byrne/PA) / PA Wire
Prosecutors claim that “criminal cash” was brought to business addresses owned or managed by Stunt and his co-defendants between January 2014 and September 2016.
Leeds Cloth Hall Court had previously heard that hundreds of thousands of pounds were brought in at once in carrier bags and holdalls at Fowler Oldfield in Bradford, West Yorkshire.
Mr Clark said the defendants hid the origin of the money by siphoning money through the company’s bank account and using the proceeds to purchase gold.
Fowler Oldfield’s five defendants — Greg Frankel, Daniel Rawson, Paul Miller, Heidi Buckler and Aaron “Harry” Rashid — all say the prosecution cannot prove that any of the cash was criminal property.
Stunt and his company’s defendants – Tulloch and Sota – said they “had no idea what it was”, the court heard.
But prosecutors said it was “blindly clear that it was criminal cash” and that each defendant “must have at least a suspicion that the source of the money was criminal in origin”.
Buckler, 45, Frankel, 44, Miller, 45, Rashid, 51, Rawson, 45, Sota, 34, Stunt, 40 and Tulok, 41, all deny money laundering.
Stunt and Sota also deny forgery.
