R vs A: (Ongoing) This is an allegation of Fraud against a Dubai-based business man. This allegation involves the “hacking and cloning” of computers and email accounts belonging to International Financial Companies, which have allegedly been used to divert millions, in various different currencies, to various fraudulent bank accounts around the world. The case involves expert evidence as to “cyber hacking” and the analysis of “digital footprints” left by the hackers.
R vs J: This case involved allegations of large-scale Money- Laundering via the “dark web” and the use of the “Bitcoin” and “Blockchain” platforms to dissipate and launder the Proceeds of Crime. This case involved highly technical and lengthy legal argument as to the anonymity afforded to users by Bitcoin platforms as well as expert evidence as to Forensic Accounting and Asset Tracing.
R vs O: One of the largest ever Tax Frauds committed against HMRC. This case was described as a systematic attack on the Revenue system which was perpetrated by sophisticated fraudsters who had access to thousands of false identities and who managed to infiltrate and obtain highly sensitive inside information from the authorities, by posing as legitimate workers.
R vs A: A complex and large-scale Benefit Fraud involving 25 defendants and millions in stolen government money. This was a sophisticated Fraud committed over the course of three years facilitated by a number of “inside men” in various government agencies.
R vs G: Ishan acted for G who was charged with attempted murder together with 13 other defendants. The case involved detailed and lengthy legal argument, not only in relation to joint enterprise, but also as to the admissibility of evidence of alleged gang affiliation. The Crown sought to call expert evidence from a member of the Met Police Gangs Unit to establish that this was a revenge attack on a rival gang member: the defence successfully challenged his status as an expert witness as well the admissibility of the evidence itself. The Defendant was unanimously acquitted following a lengthy trial.
R vs A: The successful defence of a youth charged with five counts of Murder. The case involved gang related violence committed over a 15 months period in East London. There was cross examination of a number of expert witnesses which led to submissions of No Case to Answer. All charges were dismissed following successful legal argument.
R vs H: This was a multi defendant case involving rival drug gangs which resulted in a 6-week trial. The case involved cutthroat defences and complex issues as to covert police surveillance.
R vs M: An especially sensitive and complicated Murder involving young defendants and numerous different areas of expert evidence.
R vs P: A Conspiracy to Rob involving over 50 Armed Robberies in the North London area committed over a period of two years.
R vs H: A gang related s18 GBH involving 8 defendants and allegations of police corruption.
R vs K: An extremely complex and sensitive s18 GBH involving a brother attacking his sister with a knife. Both the Defendant and Complainant were vulnerable individuals. There was a substantial amount of Psychiatric evidence put before the Jury as to the Mental Health of both parties. The Defendant was unanimously acquitted by the Jury.
R vs O: This was a gang related stabbing which took place outside Plumstead Train Station. This case attracted much local and national press. The Defendant, a youth, was unanimously acquitted of all charges.
R vs A: Successful defence of a Defendant charged with the production of over two million pounds of Class A drugs. This case was described as “an industrial size, class A drug operation producing millions of pounds worth of drugs, hidden in plain sight in the heart of London”.
