Nouveau World Wines/Finbow Wines: Thursday 4th July

Closing speeches for Simon Dempsey and Rebecca McDonald

Simon Dempsey, one of the defendants in the Finbow trial, told the judge on Monday that he had decided to dispense with the services of his legal team. He was unhappy with the way that McDonogh, his counsel, was addressing the jury. Dempsey decided to represent himself

His Honor Judge Michael Grieve offered Dempsey the opportunity to have further legal advice and time to prepare his speech to the jury. The judge told the jury not to hold Dempsey's decision to represent himself against him.

Simon Dempsey's speech

Dempsey gave his speech from within the court facing the jury - not from the glassed in dock.

He started by explaining why he had dismissed hid defence team: McDonogh's tone in his speech to the jury was rude and discourteous. Dempsey described himself as old school - holding open doors for people etc. 

He was not involved in any scam at Finbow - there was no scam at the company when he left in October 2009. He met Daniel Snelling for the first time in January 2009. 

To be concluded

Rebecca McDonald

Steve Bailey, her counsel, told the jury that Rebecca McDonald had too much to lose for no gain if she had been involved in a conspiracy to defraud investors. She essentially provided secretarial services with information given to her by Danial Snelling on a 'need to know basis'. She received nothing in addition to her salary – no bonuses, no car, no cosmetic surgery etc.

To be concluded.  

The judge started his summing up in the afternoon. 

Nouveau World Wines/Finbow Wines: the charges

Defendants:

Simon Robert Dempsey

Rebecca Louise McDonald

Daniel Thomas Snelling

Dina Louise Snelling

The case before His Honour Judge Michael Grieve QC is in Court 8 at Southwark CrownCourt, London SE1. In the indictment there are four charges. The defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges, which are:

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.

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.

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.      

**

Proceedings in the case have been delayed – closing speeches have been made on behalf of Daniel and Dina Snelling. The court will sit again tomorrow morning and hear closing speeches for Simon Dempsey and Rebecca McDonald. His Honour Judge Michael Grieve will then sum up and give directions to the jury, before they retire to consider their verdict.    

   

Nouveau World Wines/Finbow Wines trial: closing speeches

Defendants:

Simon Robert Dempsey

Rebecca Louise McDonald

Daniel Thomas Snelling

Dina Louise Snelling

The case before His Honour Judge Michael Grieve QC  is in Court 8 at Southwark CrownCourt, London SE1.

The defendants have pleaded not guilty to the charges. 

 

By the middle of last week the trial had moved into the closing speeches with just the judge's summing up and directions to the jury before the jury retires to consider its verdict. 

Prosecution: Julian Christopher QC

Starting his closing speech Julian Christopher invited the jury to take a step back and consider the overview. Was Nouveau World Wines a fraud or was it a question of theft by Sultan Trad and then Reset along with incompetence from Winevaults? Reset was based in Spain with its registered office in Cyprus, an island it couldn't spell correctly on its correspondence. Was it likely that Nouveau World Wines would have the misfortunate to be shafted by its suppliers twice in succession?

In his police interview in March 2010 Daniel Snelling spoke of a 15%-25% mark up on the wines. Now in his evidence to the court he claimed it was much higher – up to 50%. What he told the police in 2010 is more likely to be accurate. The higher mark up now cited by Snelling is an attempt to hide the huge discrepancy between the wine actually bought and the amount that was sold to the investors.

Over the period covered, Nouveau World Wines spent just under £450,000. If Sultan Trad was giving Nouveau credit then at a 20% mark up they would have been extending Nouveau £1 million in credit, while at 50% it would have been £1.5 million credit. 

Regarding the claims of wine lost through inefficiency at Winevaults, the wrong years for Mollydooker and the Greenock Creek Apricot Block "doesn't begin to explain what happened to the 36,000 bottles the investors thought they had bought".

There was a complete lack of any records of what had been bought, what had been sold and how many bottles there were left. Then the false paperwork - invoices from Global Cellars -  created at the end of March and beginning of April 2009 when Mr Streeter from the Companies Investigation Branch was looking into the company. The invoices were adjusted with the prices for the wines lowered. The second set of invoices were created on Dina Snelling's laptop, which had her name as the log in and her fingerprints were found on the laptop.

Christopher said that Dina Snelling and Rebecca McDonald were brought into the conspiracy because being family members they could be trusted by Daniel Snelling. His sister and cousin filled that role perfectly. Bringing in strangers to the administration would have meant that they would discover the truth.

Diana's account of sending two large packages of investors' documentation out to Winevaults in Australia was clearly a fabrication. There was no email traffic between Nouveau and Winevaults when the packages didn't arrive. 

Rebecca McDonald did not set up records when she joined in September 2008. The records were created when Streeter started his investigation. McDonald's account made no sense - she chose a ridiculous system that made amending and updating of the records very laborious.

Finbow

Simon Dempsey, Dina Snelling's boyfriend, was brought in to hide the trail of money from Nouveau to Finbow. The reason given for Dempsey being brought on board was that he could speak French. However, this skill was never used. Investors in Finbow paid out £2 million but only two containers of wine were sent to Hong Kong with each container carrying around £12,000 of wine, while the third container went to Nigeria. Investors paid for around one million bottles of wine.

Finbow was clearly Daniel Snelling's company - he owned it and ran it. However, when interviewed by the police Daniel Snelling claimed that he was only a consultant to Finbow employed because of his network of contacts in France, Italy and the UK. If asked, he would assist in the sourcing of wine and would give advice. Simon Dempsey and Paul Rees were running Finbow. He did not know the politics of the company. The reality was very different - Finbow was Daniel Snelling. 

With Finbow none of the lessons of Nouveau were learnt. No records were kept. If it had been a legitimate business they would have been. 

When Rebecca McDonald left in February 2010 Daniel had to call Dina back from Australia to run the office. He needed someone in place who he could trust.

Dorian Lovell-Pank - counsel for Daniel Snelling

Lovell-Pank began his speech in defence of Daniel Snelling by quoting Confucius "man, who skates on this ice must skate fast". He claimed that Julian Christopher had swept through the case in his closing speech. The prosecution's case was based on the ideal world not the real world that we know. Their case is based on businesses run in a particular way - an ideal model. In the real world there are business failures, mistakes are made, records are not always up to date.

"The whole thing unravelled into an awful mess." "Failure is not the same thing as crime. This was not a criminal enterprise. The defendants are never criminals. The people running these businesses are not crooks."

This took court proceedings up to the close of Wednesday 26th June. I have been unable to get to court since then and will not be back in court before Wednesday 3rd July.