LONDON: Former money exchange bureau boss British Pakistani Ahsan Javaid has sued Scotland Yard to recover his nearly £600,000 confiscated by the police from him after the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) failed to prove its £34 million money laundering case against him, leading to collapse of the high-profile trial and the acquittal.
At the heart of Ahsan Javaid’s case against the London Police are his four laptops which the Scotland Yard officers seized during raids in November 2017 and returned after nearly four years. Ahsan Javaid alleges his laptops were manipulated, tampered with, passwords changed and key evidence to support his rightful ownership of the seized cash was destroyed, following his acquittal in the criminal case.
Ahsan Javaid, his wife Amna Gulzar and two others were first arrested in November 2017 but charged in May 2018 with conspiring to launder £34 million between 2012 and 2018, mainly to Pakistan, with false identities by setting sham companies and accounts. They were accused of stashing away cash in 43 bank accounts before transferring the money from the UK to Pakistan and other countries but the trial collapsed amid failures by the police and prosecution. However the police didn’t return the seized/frozen cash of Javaid – estimated at £600,000 – at the time of his acquittal in October 2021. Now the British Pakistani has taken the police to the court over discrimination, unfairness and wrongful acts.
The trial collapsed in October 2021 at the Snaresbrook Crown Court due to the “systemic and catastrophic” disclosure failings by the prosecution, ill-preparedness and lack of evidence. Judge Charles Falk stopped the trial and condemned the CPS after the prosecution body asked for more time to investigate and prepare evidence – nearly two months into the trial scheduled.
“Catastrophic failure has come about because the investigation exponentially grew in size without sufficient manpower, resources, training or expertise being allocated to it,” the judge had said.
Ahsan Javaid and his family celebrated the collapse of the trial and failure of the prosecution to get a criminal conviction against them but Javaid’s dilemma didn’t end there as the police announced that his money will remain frozen and forfeited as a recoverable money under the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) which gives the police power to seize monies without formal charges, on ground of suspicions that the seized money is a recoverable property or intended for use in unlawful conduct.
Ahsan Javaid told Geo News in an interview that he and his family were put through a frightening nightmare for several years. He said he has no doubt he was treated like this because of his Pakistani origin and anyone else in the same situation would get a different treatment from the UK police and prosecution.
He shared: “The monies we sent to Pakistan were remittance transfers. There was no money laundering or criminality of any kind. We sent money from poor and working-class people from the UK to Pakistan. Our companies were registered with the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). The police charged us in May 2018 accusing us of money laundering. We said from day one that we were not involved in any kind of money laundering but nobody believed us but after nearly four years we were proven right and innocent as the prosecution failed to prove anything against us. The prosecution said they were fully prepared with evidence and tried to put us under pressure to plead guilty but we refused as we were not guilty. The trial started on the prosecution’s request and then the prosecution told the court it was not prepared. It was established in the court that the money was sent to Pakistan through banking means and everything was documented and declared.”
Ahsan Javaid said: “Nearly two months into the live trial, it was clear the CPS was clueless and fishing; it wanted to stretch the case to somehow secure more time and get some evidence but the judge could see the CPS has no case and decided that the CPS can’t be given more time and, therefore, ended the trial.”
Ahsan Javaid said the police returned laptops to him nearly four years after the trial had ended but “the passwords were changed or they manipulated on all machines”. The laptops are not working now.
He stressed: “The police withheld evidence that was capable of supporting my case, interfered with my ability to provide relevant evidence and prevented me from accessing my laptops, which contained evidence of the legitimacy of the trading activities of the companies. We believe the police changed the passwords and manipulated the device. We cannot get the evidence out of those laptops. We are now asking the court to order a forensic inspection of our laptops to determine what the police did to the machines. I am fighting for justice and asking the court to hold the police accountable on the matter of playing with the laptops and the evidence.”
Ahsan Javaid complained that he was a victim of the police. “I remained in the police custody for over 27 months without committing any crime. The police tried to complicate things as much as it could but in the end the truth prevailed and we won. I am sure we will win the civil proceedings case too. My case is against the police’s POCA powers. In this law the burden is on the accused and the accused has to prove everything. Also it’s important that the police return the seized items in the original and authentic form. Those laptops carry crucial evidence. We are requesting the court that these laptops have all kinds of data and this is our genuine money which we need and should be returned to us.” A Crown Prosecution Service spokesperson told Geo News: “There was a failure to follow reasonable lines of enquiry to ensure a fair trial. We applied to adjourn the case and remedy this but the judge ruled the scale of that task was too great. We respect that decision. The CPS remains committed to working with investigators at an early stage, developing proportionate and timely cases while ensuring a fair trial for all defendants.”
The Metropolitan Police said: “An issue was raised about the return of laptops seized during the criminal investigation. We dispute any allegations that the passwords to these laptops were changed or the laptops unlawfully tampered with in any way.”