Update: 17.30, 17th July 2013
The jury has been unable to reach a majority verdict on Rebecca McDonald regarding Count 1 – conspiracy to defraud in relation to Nouveau World Wines – see details below. Previously I listed McDonald as guilty on this count. In fact she is guilty with regard to Count 4: conspiracy to defraud in relation to Finbow Wines Ltd. My apologies for this error.
Here are the details of the charges with the verdicts returned yesterday. The jury is still considering Count 1 in relation to Rebecca McDonald over the Finbow fraud. I understand from Southwark Crown Court that His Honour Judge Michael Grieve has now allowed a majority verdict for this count.
Simon Dempsey was found not guilty on the two charges he faced – Counts 2 and 4. Daniel Snelling was found guilty on all four counts, Dina Snelling guilty on the two counts she faced and Rebecca McDonald guilty on Count 1.
The jury has been unable to reach a majority verdict on Rebecca McDonald regarding Count 1 – conspiracy to defraud in relation to Nouveau World Wines – see details below. Previously I listed McDonald as guilty on this count. In fact she is guilty with regard to Count 4: conspiracy to defraud in relation to Finbow Wines Ltd. My apologies for this error.
***
Here are the details of the charges with the verdicts returned yesterday. The jury is still considering Count 1 in relation to Rebecca McDonald over the Finbow fraud. I understand from Southwark Crown Court that His Honour Judge Michael Grieve has now allowed a majority verdict for this count.
Simon Dempsey was found not guilty on the two charges he faced – Counts 2 and 4. Daniel Snelling was found guilty on all four counts, Dina Snelling guilty on the two counts she faced and Rebecca McDonald guilty on Count 1.
Count 1: Conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law
Particulars of offence:
Daniel Thomas Snelling, Dina Louise Snelling and Rebecca Louise McDonald, between the 1st day of January 2007 and the 30th of August 2009, conspired together and with Kelly Louise Humphreys and others to defraud such persons as could be persuaded to make transfers of funds to Nouveau World Wines Ltd for the purpose of investment in good quality wines on their behalf by dishonestly
a) making false representations that the funds provided by the investors would be directed to the purchase of such wines as represented;
b) failing to direct the funds provided by the investors to the purcahse of wines as represented;
c) providing documentation to investors about their respective purchases which falsely represented the position, and
d) diverting funds received from investors from the company bank account for their own purposes.
Update (17.00, 17.7.13): Jury unable to come to a majority verdict with regard to Rebecca McDonald. Julian Christopher, the prosecutor, has decided that it is not in the public interest to hold another trial as McDonald has been found guilty on one count. The charge will remain on 'file', so cannot be resurrected without leave of Southwark Crown Court or the Court of Appeal.
Count 2: Converting criminal property, contrary to Section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Particulars of offence:
Daniel Thomas Snelling and Simon Robert Dempsey between the 21st day of April 2009 and 21st day of May 2009 converted funds to the value of £35,000 which were transferred into bank account number ******* with the National Westminster Bank plc in the name of Simon Robert Dempsey from bank account ******* with the National Westminister Bank in the name of Daniel Thomas Snelling and which, as they knew or suspected constituted or represented Daniel Thomas Snelling's benefit from criminal conduct.
Count 3: Converting criminal property, contrary to Section 327 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Particulars of offence:
Daniel Thomas Snelling between the 17th day of August 2009 and 2nd day of October 2009 together with Kelly Louise Humphreys converted funds to the value of £107,948 which were transferred from the bank account number ***-******-*** with the Hang Seng Bank Ltd in Hong Kong in the name of Daniel Thomas Snelling to the First Direct bank account number ******** in the name of Kelly Humphreys, and which, as they knew or suspected, constituted or represented Daniel Thomas Snelling's benefit from criminal conduct.
Verdict: Guilty Daniel Snelling
Kelly Humphreys, Daniel Snelling's girlfriend, faces a trial at a later date. She has just had a baby.
Count 4: Conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law.
Particulars of offence:
Daniel Thomas Snelling, Simon Robert Dempsey, Dina Louise Snelling and Rebecca Louise McDonald, between the 1st day of April 2009 and the 5th day of March 2010, conspired together and with Kelly Louise Humphreys and others to defraud such persons as could be persuaded to make transfers of funds to Finbow Wines Ltd for the purpose of investment in wine in bulk for the purpose of shipment to countries where they could be sold for a large profit on behalf of the investors, by dishonestly
a) making false representations that the funds provided would be directed to the purchase of wines for re-sale as represented;
b) failing to direct the funds provided by the investors to the purchase of wines as represented;
c) providing documentation to investors about their respective purchases which falsely represented the position, and
d) diverting funds received from the investors from the company bank account for their own purposes.
Verdict: Guilty Daniel Snelling, Dina Snelling, Rebecca McDonald
Not guilty: Simon DempseySentencing will be on 9th September not before 12 noon at Southwark Crown Court. Daniel Snelling, Dina Snelling and Rebecca McDonald are on conditional bail until then.
The investigation was carried out by the Metropolitan Police with major roles played by officers DC Andrew Bailey and DC Carl Hughes. Julian Christopher QC was the prosecuting barrister for the Crown.
do you have contact details for Andrew Bailey of DC Carl Hughes?? I maybe able to help them locate Billy Davies
ReplyDeleteAnon. Many thanks. Could you email me on budmac@btinternet.com and I can provide you with an email address.
DeleteJim, why is there a gap between the end of the case & sentencing ?
ReplyDeleteAnon. Not sure why this is the case but it is not unusual.
DeleteMr Budd, you're reporting of this story has been based on your intermediate attendance at Court and the titbits fed to you by the officers in the case which I have personally witnessed. At least the jury made their decision based on the FULL evidence presented to them rather than intermittent attendance by somebody with a personal agenda against Daniel Snelling. You were not present for his evidence in chief, nor where you present for mine. The accuracy of your reporting is correct only in so far as my cross examination was based solely on nit picking and legal semantics of my consistent accounts of this horrible situation. You're suggestion that my acquittal was based solely on my personally delivered speech rather than the complete lack of evidence against me is nothing other than ridiculous. As was your publishing of my daughters name, which I found repugnant, and my personal bank account details. In your rush to publish sensationalist headlines you have contributed to a media frenzy which is both distasteful and inaccurate. Whilst I do not for one minute forget the terrible losses that investors have suffered, it does not justify the personal witch hunt against individual families and their children based on sound bites and condensed press releases to satisfy a media blood lust. If you want the full story, then by all means, be a journalist and dig into that, don't be hand fed quotes from the prosecution. Journalism is supposed to be a reflection of both sides of the story but it would appear that both you and the Daily Mail are cut from the same cloth, inflammatory, inaccurate personal opinions posted either in print or online to progress your own agendas. I would be happy to discuss this matter with you personally should you wish to hear an alternate version of events. Regards Simon Dempsey
ReplyDeleteSimon Dempsey
DeleteThank you for your comments.
I have no personal agenda against either Daniel or Dina Snelling, although I do have a declared agenda against people who knowingly fleece people of their life savings. There will doubtless be many investors in Nouveau World Wines and Finbow Wines whose retirement will have been considerably affected by these frauds – a long term financial mugging. Frauds that were perpetrated to provide the Snellings with a luxurious lifestyle including flashly cars and cosmetic surgery.
Although I spent a considerable time in court I obviously did not witness the whole eight weeks nor have access to the documents that were available to the jury. However, the jury, who did have access to the FULL evidence, found Daniel Snelling and Dina Snelling guilty on all counts. I am delighted by these verdicts.
I did indeed speak to the officers involved in this case. Howver, everything that I posted on investdrinks during the trial was based on what was said in open court and I challenge you to pick out anything in my reporting of the case that was not said in open court.
I did not speak to the prosecution. During my visits to the court I took copious notes – some 100 pages in a reporter's notebook.
Regarding your acquittal on all charges I was careful to highlight this. You write:
'You're (sic) suggestion that my acquittal was based solely on my personally delivered speech rather than the complete lack of evidence against me is nothing other than ridiculous.'
Can I commend that you read carefully what I wrote before you make the above absurd charge:
'I wonder and will never know how much Simon Dempsey's brief but well delivered defence speech played in his favour with the jury.'
I was impressed by your speech to the jury, so it is surely entirely reasonable that this may well have played in your favour. There is absolutely no suggestion here that your acquittal was based solely on your speech.
What media frenzy are you talking about?
Mr Budd, as you failed to mention the complete lack of any evidence against me, possibly due to the fact that you were not present during all of the trial and only mention my speech it appears to me to infer that it is only due to this that I was acquitted. Perhaps I am being too sensitive on this issue.
ReplyDeleteWith regards to lavish lifestyles, after I resigned from Finbow, I was working on a building site and certainly never led a lavish one during my time there, as the evidence showed. Dina Snelling lived in a 2 bed flat with her parents and her daughter and drove a 5 year old Freelander and Miss Macdonald lived in the family home she has lived in for years. They were paid office workers hardly city high flyers. I would be extremely curious to see if they would have been charged if they were not related to Daniel Snelling but I guess that's something that we will never know.
I cannot speak for what happened at Nouveau as I was not involved but something clearly went wrong at Finbow after my departure and you yourself are aware of many key players, mentioned in open court, that were not named on this indictment. The Crown painted a nice simple picture all tied up neatly with a little bow on top of a fraud perpetrated by brothers and sisters and other family members, and it is this media portrayal that has angered me as it is inaccurate and does not tell the whole story.
Anyway, I guess you and I will never see eye to eye on many of these matters and a long drawn out debate in a public forum will be unlikely to resolve our differences. I simply wanted to comment on some of the things that I have seen and read since this trial began and I thank you for at least having the courtesy to publish and respond to some of those comments, unlike the Daily Mail, who failed to even publish my email let alone reply to it. Regards Simon Dempsey
Simon Dempsey
DeleteThanks for your comments. I am assure you that you are being too sensitive here – as I explained I included my speculation as I was impressed by your speech.
In my Breaking News post I referred only to the defence put up by Daniel Snelling making no comment about the evidence presented in relation to Dina Snelling, Rebecca McDonald or yourself, although I was present for at least some of your evidence and cross-examination.
It is clear that Daniel Snelling is a serial fraudster. There are questions to ask about the Sandy Pines Bulgarian property scheme apparently run in connection with Matthew Hart of Encarta Wines Ltd. It looks like Green Leaf was another incipient scam as M 2 M presumably was.
As you are aware the police are still looking for Billy Davies. Presumably if he is found he is likely to be arrested and charged. Paul Rees and Paul Kelly have both relatively recently been convicted of other offences – money laundering in the case of Kelly.
Regards
Jim Budd
Although Dina Snelling was paid by cheque (or bank transfer) during Nouveau, in the Finbow period she was paid in cash.
DeleteHow could Finbow guarantee to buy back the cheap Italian white wine they were supposed to be sending to China (only two consignments actually ever sent)at the end of a year if Finbow hadn't managed to sell the wine by then? It is very likely that professional buyers would be looking for the next vintage, so even if Finbow had shipped all the wine its investors had ordered its resale value would probably be small at best.
In the early stages (July/August 2009) when Finbow was proposing fine wines from Bordeaux, who amongst the sales staff would have had the necessary knowledge and experience of the wines that were being offered as an investment? Or were they all working from a script?
Consider yourself blessed! You were paid off with £25000 cash another £60000 to follow for departing the company, this is without any interim earnings. You were found innocent.
DeleteInnocent people have been found guilty! People earning sums considerably less and paying tax on these earnings who are indeed innocent of what they have been accused!
It is good of you to acknowledge this and should any thing more come to light to the Crown, IE, the real perpetrators and beneficiaries of this fraud, to warrant a retrial or appeal, you could be called upon to attest the innocence of those wrongly found guilty.
Correction: During the trial the £25,000, later increased to £35,000, was described as a loan.
Deleteappreciated for this info but i was not describing the "set up loan" from Daniel Snelling but the "good bye" package from Billy Davies, to Simon Dempsey.
Deletewhat was the sentencing ??
ReplyDeletePlease see latest post.
Delete