Suspended sentence handed down in Longford money laundering case
Lucky Igbinogun "played a much more significant role than he acknowledged. He was less than honest with the probation officer. He sought to deflect blame on everyone, other than himself.”
A money laundering case, which involved a total sum of €16,500, was heard at Longford District Court last week.
Two people with Longford town addresses appeared in relation to the offence.
One of the defendants opened a bank account which was used for laundering €16,500. A total of €2,100 was withdrawn from this account on one day in 2020.
Lucky Igbinogun, a 22 year old man, with an address at 17 The Hollows, Farnagh Hill, was handed a prison sentence of four months, which was suspended for 12 months. He was involved in the laundering of €2,100.
Mr Igbinogun was charged with engaging in handling property that is proceeds of criminal conduct to a total value of €2,100, under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act 2010).
He was also ordered to pay €1,500 to the injured party, which was a company based in the Czech Republic.
Aisling Purcell, aged 29, with an address at 78 McKeown Park, Longford, and also 33 Ardnacassa Avenue, Ballinalee Road, Longford, was given a probation order for 12 months.
Ms Purcell was charged with transferring and handling property that is the proceeds of criminal conduct to the value of €16,500,34, under the Criminal Justice (Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing Act 2010).
The court was told that there was contradictory evidence between Mr Igbinogun and the other defendant in his case, Ms Aisling Purcell.
Gda Glancy told the court that Ms Purcell had told Gardai that she had owed a drug debt and that Mr Igbinogun had asked her to hand over her bank details.
On the date of the offence, January 24, 2020, it was alleged that Ms Purcell was brought to an ATM by a third party. It was further alleged that her card and pin of her card were handed to Mr Igbinogun.
He was alleged to have withdrawn €600 from the outside ATM and €1,500 from the ATM inside the bank. These were the maximum amounts permitted to be withdrawn from both of the ATM’s, the court was told.
Ms Purcell then asked to make a withdrawal from the bank teller. However, the teller refused to do so because they became suspicious due to the amount involved.
Ms Purcell was given a salary certificate and wage slip from the company that were the victims of the fraud.
These documents were handed to the bank official, but they were refused, due to their poor quality.
Garda Glancy told the court that Mr Iginobigun initially denied any knowledge of the withdrawals until CCTV footage was shown to him.
However, he had a very vague recollection of events. Ms Purcell’s bank account was opened two weeks earlier. Gardai believe that the account was set up for the purpose of money laundering.
Ms Purcell was what is termed a ‘money mule’ and was at the bottom rung of the ladder.
The Garda told the court that Mr Iginobun’s home was searched under warrant. There was a sum of €765 found in his bedroom.
His explanation for this sum of money was that he had won it betting on football matches.
He was a student. According to Garda Glancy, his excuse was that he did not think there was anything wrong with the withdrawals.
The remaining funds were returned to the injured party in the Czech Republic, the court was told.
Referring to contradictions in the defendant’s evidence, Judge Owens said that “in the probation report, Mr Iginobun was unclear if he was driven into town or walked. Meanwhile, Ms Purcell had a very clear memory of what happened.”
Representing Aisling Purcell, solicitor Brid Mimnagh said that “there is another party involved in this case who is abroad. They had a substantial role to play.”
Ms Mimnagh told the court that Ms Purcell was a single mother. Mr Iginibigun’s partner was expecting a baby soon and he was hoping to return to college.
In her summing up, Judge Owens said that “there was an identifiable injured party in this case.”
“Often, when we are dealing with these cases, we are not given all of the relevant facts. We need to be more vigilant that we have all of the information,” she stated.
Turning to Mr Igbinogun, she said, “the defendant played a much more significant role than he acknowledged. He was less than honest with the probation officer. He sought to deflect blame on everyone, other than himself.”