Three senior judges at the Court of Appeal have refused to consider an application by the disgraced former director of the peer to peer lending platform Collateral, who was convicted of various fraud offences last year, to challenge his conviction.
Collateral (UK) Limited was a finance company which facilitated investments crowdfunded by members of the public. The firm and two related companies entered administration in April 2018.
The two defendants, Andrew Currie, 58, and Peter Currie, 60, both denied two charges under the Fraud Act 2006 and one charge under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in a criminal prosecution brought by the Financial Conduct Authority.
For further information about the case, and to see our reporting of every day of the trial please visit our main information page.
Please donate to the Cheese Fund to support crowd-funded journalism of the P2P sector.
Reporting by Daniel Cloake.
The first count of fraud alleged they dishonestly made a false representation to investors and potential investors that the company Collateral UK Limited was authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
Peter Currie was found GUILTY
Andrew Currie was found NOT GUILTY
The second count of fraud claimed the Curries abused their positions, in which they were expected to safeguard, and not act against, the financial interests of the company by transferring £275,000 from Collateral to Auri Developments Ltd.
Peter Currie was found GUILTY
Andrew Currie was found GUILTY
The third charge related to converting criminal property, suggesting the Curries converted credits to the total value of £372,299.52 to bank accounts owned by Andrew Currie, knowing or suspecting it to be proceeds of crime, namely fraud by misrepresentation.
Peter Currie was found GUILTY
Andrew Currie was found GUILTY
The Appeal
At a hearing heard in May 2024, at the Court of Appeal Criminal division, three senior judges were told that the conviction of Peter Currie was unsafe.
The submissions were made by barrister Colin Aylott KC on behalf of Peter Currie and related “to certain evidence which the trial judge ruled admissible“
The evidence referred to was a series of emails from Mr Richard Tall, a solicitor, to Peter Currie.
It was argued at trial that those emails should not be shown to the jury on the basis that they were covered by legal professional privilege.
The basis for that assertion was said to be that Mr Tall was jointly instructed by both Peter Currie and the Collateral company.
If privilege existed between Mr Tall and the company then at an earlier court hearing it had been explained that the joint administrators of the firm had waived any such privilege.
HHJ Griffith disagreed with the argument that the advice was given to Peter Currie solely in a personal capacity and ruled that Mr Tall’s emails were admissible as evidence.
One of the e-mails, exclusively obtained by the mouseinthecourt, is shown below. The court of appeal identified that there was “a clear probative value to the prosecution case in Mr Tool’s(sic) emails” being deployed before the jury.
This was said to be because they show that Peter Currie had been “advised at an early stage of the seriousness of the issues that were being raised by the FCA, yet [he] remained involved in the transfer of money out of [Collateral]“
These transfers were “highly relevant to counts 2 and 3” which related to payments of £275k and £372k.
As to whether the e-mails were privileged the Court of Appeal found that “the applicant was unable to establish that he had communicated with Mr Tool(sic), or sought his advice, in a personal capacity and not merely as the representative of [Collateral].”
“it is not realistically arguable that the judge was at fault”
Lady Justice Whipple said Peter Currie “would face a high hurdle in overturning the judge’s finding on appeal” with the court ruling “it is not realistically arguable that the judge was at fault in reaching the evaluation that he did on the basis of the material that was before him“.
Concluding the 33-paragraph-judgment, the judge said the court had “considered the wider picture. In our judgment, there was substantial other evidence to support this prosecution and we do not doubt the safety of this conviction“.
There appears to be at least two errors in the judgment with Mr Tall being called Mr Tool and the barristers being named for the wrong party.
Proceeds of crime
The Currie brothers have yet to face a proceeds of crime application, with a preliminary hearing expected to be held in June 2024. Our coverage of a previous POCA hearing can be read here.
Case details:
Courtroom 9 Royal Courts of Justice
Before Lady Justice Whipple, Mr Justice Wall, HHJ Lucking KC
3rd May 2024
Case number: 202302026
CURRIE Peter
The Financial Conduct Authority were represented by barrister Thomas Coke-Smyth
Peter Currie were represented by barristers Colin Aylott KC and Ashley Hendron.
The work on this site is protected by copyright laws and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved.
You may print off one copy, and may download extracts, of any page(s) from our site for your personal use and you may draw the attention of others within your organisation to content posted on our site.
You must not modify the paper or digital copies of any materials you have printed off or downloaded in any way, and you must not use any illustrations, photographs, video or audio sequences or any graphics separately from any accompanying text.
Our status (and that of any identified contributors) as the authors of content on our site must always be acknowledged.
You must not use any part of the content on our site for commercial purposes without obtaining a licence to do so from us or our licensors.
Mouse in the Court 