A solicitor convicted of unlawfully disclosing confidential information during a Serious Fraud Office (SFO) investigation has been refused permission to appeal by the Court of Appeal, marking an important decision on the interpretation of the “tipping-off” provisions contained in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The case, R v William Osmond, is the first to reach the Court of Appeal concerning Section 333A(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act, which makes it a criminal offence to reveal information that could prejudice an ongoing money laundering investigation. William Osmond, who was admitted as a solicitor in 1979, is believed to be the first solicitor prosecuted under these provisions.
Mr Osmond was convicted in 2023 after disclosing information connected to a Serious Fraud Office investigation involving mining company ENRC. At the time, he was the senior partner of Osmond and Osmond Solicitors and had acted in the purchase of an £8 million property in Mayfair for a client who was under investigation.
The Serious Fraud Office had requested information from Mr Osmond during its investigation and specifically instructed him to keep the request confidential, warning that disclosing its existence could amount to the criminal offence of tipping off.
Seeking to overturn his conviction, Mr Osmond argued that the trial judge had unfairly limited the defence by deciding legal issues that, in his view, should have been left for the jury to determine.
However, the Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. Delivering the judgment, Lord Justice Males, sitting with Mrs Justice Cutts and His Honour Judge Andrew Lees, held that the trial judge’s pre-trial rulings were appropriate and helped ensure the case was managed efficiently while allowing the jury to focus on the central issues.
The Court also confirmed that it is the prosecution’s responsibility to determine the charges brought before the court and to frame the indictment accordingly. The judges found that there had been no improper interference with the jury’s role and that the prosecution had clearly set out its case before the trial commenced.
The appeal judges further noted that there was no dispute that a money laundering investigation was underway. The key issues for the jury were whether Mr Osmond’s disclosure was capable of prejudicing that investigation and whether he knew or suspected that such prejudice was likely.
In addition, the Court upheld the trial judge’s rulings on several legal issues determined before the trial, agreeing with both her reasoning and conclusions.
Refusing permission to appeal, the Court observed that this is the first appellate decision concerning the tipping-off provisions under Section 333A(3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Recognising its significance, the judges granted permission for the judgment to be cited in future cases, making it an important authority for legal professionals dealing with money laundering investigations and confidentiality obligations.
