Gary Curran pled guilty to laundering £28,000 from building work on a pensioner. He received three cheques which he attempted to withdraw. This money was from roofing work made payable to Curran which had allegedly been carried out for a pensioner by Irish travellers. 

Curran told police that he was paid £500 per cheque. He admitted to police that he knew something was ‘not right’. He then pled guilty at Glasgow Sheriff Court to acquiring, using and the possession of £28,000 which was criminal property. 

The elderly man from Bishopton had the roofing work done in September 2020. It was heard that Curran was not one of the men who carried out this work. 

It was stated by the Prosecutor: “However, the workmen asked Mr Moodie to send a total of three cheques – two for £10,000 and one for £8000 – to be made out to Gary Curran.”

On a number of occasions, he attended at the bank to withdraw £9000 from each of the £10,000 cheques. Staff became suspicious when he attempted to withdraw the final £4500 and he was informed that he was not permitted to make the withdrawal.

Police were then contacted and the matter was discussed with Mr Moodie.

The Prosecutor stated:  “He said cheques would be paid into his bank account and he would withdraw the money and hand it over. He said he was unemployed and struggling financially and agreed to become involved in this venture and for every cheque he would be paid £500 in payment.”

In defending Mr Curran’s solicitor stated that Curran was ‘short of money’ and that he was told they would pay £500 for cheques to his bank account. He told the court that Curran did not know what they were doing and had no reason to be suspicious. However, during the interview with police he stated that something was not right. 

In sentencing Sheriff Matthew Jackson QC stated that the Crown had distanced him from being part of ‘bogus builders’. However, he was involved in laundering he money. He said: “A non-custodial disposal would have sent out a wrong message to those who become used by these people as you were for your bank account. I’m satisfied that a custodial sentence is appropriate in this case.”