Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free
Socialite James Stunt has told a jury that at no stage did he suspect his offices in London’s Mayfair were being used for money laundering, after prosecutors claimed the premises were a “trusted hub” for criminality.
The former son-in-law of Formula 1 ‘supremo’ Bernie Ecclestone testified at Leeds Crown Court on Wednesday after he was accused of being part of a scheme allowing criminals to funnel more than £200mn of “dirty money” into the banking system over two years.
Stunt, who was married to Ecclestone’s daughter Petra for six years, acknowledged that he led an “extravagant lifestyle” with access to “eye-watering wealth”.
He also accepted that he drew attention to himself, having driven “a lot of flash cars”, but said he did not court publicity. The tabloid press, he said, “build you up to destroy you”.
Stunt, 42, is one of five individuals standing trial charged with money laundering.
The Ecclestones are not defendants in the trial and are not accused of any wrongdoing.
Jurors have been told that a Bradford-based precious metals and jewellery dealer, Fowler Oldfield, was a financial “gateway” for criminals between 2014 and 2016.
Opening their case in October, prosecutors claimed criminals were able to circumvent financial due-diligence checks, allowing them to hide the illicit sources of their funds. Most of it was used to buy gold.
Prosecutors claimed that Stunt & Co, owned by Stunt, took the “lion’s share” of profits from the scheme and that tens of millions of pounds in cash was dropped by couriers at the offices in Mayfair.
Stunt was asked on Wednesday by his barrister Trevor Burke KC: “Did you believe you were entering into a criminal agreement to facilitate the deposit of criminal proceeds of crime?” The defendant replied: “Absolutely not.”
Stunt gave the same answer when asked if he would “ever have agreed to committing a crime?” or if he suspected he was “becoming involved in a criminal enterprise?”
Throughout his business in the gold trade, his company never dealt in cash, Stunt added.
It was later put to Stunt that “at no stage did you suspect” that the premises were a site for money laundering? He replied that this was the case.
Jurors heard that Stunt, the son of a wealthy businessman, had enjoyed the trappings of wealth, including bodyguard protection, but had struggled in the past with addiction.
He told the court that he instigated a prenuptial agreement before his marriage to Petra, limiting his claim in the event of divorce to £16mn.
He described himself as a “Luddite and technophobe” who relied on Petra to relay email messages to him.
The defendants deny the charges and the trial continues.
