A businessman denied today (Tuesday) using bank ac
A businessman denied today (Tuesday) using bank accounts as a launderette for stolen cheques in a bid to wash dirty money clean.
Cheques issued by City of London finance houses were intercepted and forged by a gang of fraudsters.
Cambridge-based Halouk ‘Alan’ Musa is alleged to have been ‘instrumental’ in trying to net their full face value of over pnds stlng 100,000.
At London’s Southwark Crown Court, 45-year-old Musa pleads not guilty to the theft with others of pnds stlng 22,430 between August 13 and August 23, 1996.
And the defendant, of Glebe Road, Cambridge, further denies the attempted theft of pnds stlng 84,213 between June 22 and June 26, 1998.
Mr Christian Moll, prosecuting, said the cheques, issued by KPMG and ABN-Amro Services, were ‘fraudulently altered’ to change the name of the payee.
As a result the first cheque was paid into the account of a Mr AM Martin in August 1996 – the account holder existed but was just 16 at the time and ‘had never before seen such activity.
‘
Mr Moll said days later two amounts totalling pnds stlng 13,500 were withdrawn and on August 27 a cheque drawn on the same source was presented at a bank in Newington Green, London.
The payment for pnds stlng 8,200 was made out to Leadenhall Management Services, a company founded by Musa.
In June 1998, the defendant opened an account with the National Bank of Dubai in London’s Edgware Road in the name of another company, Berwick International Holdings.
On June 22, the cheque for pnds stlng 84,213 was presented, made out to Berwick, but trading as Ilias Finance.
Because such a trading account had yet to be formerly opened, staff looked for a special clearance and were told it had been fraudulently altered.
Mr Moll said Musa was arrested days later at his home and a counterfoil for the deposit was seized as well as evidence of the earlier payment to Leadenhall.
When interviewed, the defendant entered ‘no comment’ to all questions put to him.
Mr Moll told the jury: ‘The Crown say if he had an explanation, he should have given it at the time he was interviewed.
‘
He asked why Musa had received the first cash ‘if he was not instrumental in the fraud.
‘
Counsel said on the later occasion, Musa had opened an account so another person could deposit the second cheque.
‘We say Musa was instrumental in laundering stolen money,’ said Mr Moll.
‘In both cases, it is fair to say Musa was not acting alone – but the inference to be drawn is he was lending assistance to this dishonest enterprise.
‘
The trial continues.
ends
