Jim Sturman KC

Jim has extensive experience in diversion, VAT, tax and mortgage frauds. Also corruption (advised in many national and international corruption inquiries both in the UK and abroad), fraudulent trading, DTI offences and Companies Act offences, software piracy and MTIC fraud.

Has been retained by City institutions to advise on disclosure in complex “share ramping” and “insider dealing” serious frauds.

Jim is experienced in advising in data protection offences, including blagging” and has frequently advised in relation to cases investigated by the Information Commissioner including advising corporations and individuals in relation to their rights and obligations when summonsed before Regulators or Parliament.

Advises potential defendants in relation to offers to compound proceedings in order to avoid prosecution and in relation to VAT assessments where persons have been inadvertently caught up in diversion frauds. Advises Solicitors and city institutions on money laundering regulations, also considerable experience in advising in civil fraud allegations on the impact of the criminal law. Frequently instructed to advise in confiscation proceedings. Advises in FSA matters.

WWL 2021 said of Jim “a brilliant silk who clients love” because he is “extremely passionate about his cases” and “always goes the extra mile.”

In The Legal 500 2017 in Business and Reg Crime the editors observed “If the client has even the faintest chance, he is your man. And in the Fraud: Crime section the same editors remarked ‘A brilliant advocate – very experienced and well-connected.’

Chambers Directory 2018 ranked Jim in Band one for fraud and observed “Incredibly hard working and has a bedside manner that gives huge confidence to clients. He is of enormous support to instructing solicitors.“ and “An exceptional jury advocate.”

Notable fraud cases

• R v X: Jim (leading Tom Daniel) acted for X, charged with fraud by abuse of position and money laundering in a case that ran for 5 years and concluded with unanimous acquittals in June 2024. X was a trader for one of the UK’s largest private companies who was alleged to have received secret commissions in breach of trust and laundered the proceeds of a biodiesel fraud committed by a counter-party. The case involved complex international inquiries, consideration of trading practices, bad character evidence of the counter-party, complex disclosure arguments, arguments in relation to legal professional privilege, section 8 applications and dismissal arguments (one count was dismissed at the dismissal stage). By the time the case began more than 2.5 million documents had been received, analysed and deployed in the successful defence of X.
• R v X: Acted for X (instructed by White and Case) between 2017 and 2020 in the UK’s first prosecution arising out of the Unaoil investigation. Submissions advanced by Jim’s team have led to a Judge ordered inquiry into the working practices of the SFO and strong judicial criticism of the Director of the SFO.
• R v McKinlay & Others: Jim acted for a senior Conservative party official prosecuted in relation to alleged expenses irregularities in the South Thanet constituency campaign in the general election in the United Kingdom in May of 2015.
• R v M: Jim acted for M who faced allegations of fraud and offences contrary to FISMA in relation to a “high return” investment programme described by the Judge as a “scam”. After negotiations with the prosecution M pleaded guilty to only one FISMA count and received a suspended sentence of imprisonment.
• R v X: Acted for a Company Director of a “grey market” clothing company charged with conspiracy and substantive trade mark offences. The case spanned the period between 2015 and 2017 before the case against Jim’s client was dropped after further submissions were made shortly before the trial began. The case against all other accused was stayed as an abuse of process three days later. Costs of in excess of £200,000 were ordered to be paid by the prosecution to Jim’s client as a result of an “improper act or omission” by the prosecution
• R v X: Acted for a senior executive of Barclays Bank in the Qatar fund raising investigation. After a 2 and a ½ year inquiry the SFO decided not to proceed after receipt of detailed submissions drafted by Jim and his instructing solicitor as to why there was no evidence justifying such a course.
• A v B International Arbitration at the ICTY: Acted for a Company in a commercial dispute where the defence was corruption, case spanned several countries in the middle east and several years.
• R v X (2015): Acted for a solicitor acquitted on allegations of stamp duty fraud, tried in the Turks and Caicos Islands
• R v Chris Ronnie (2015): Acted for the former chief executive of JJB on charges of fraud by abuse of position.
• R v X (2014): Acted for the Chairman of a multi-national oil and gas services company charged with corruption.
• R v X (2014): Advised a former senior executive in the Innospec investigation.
• R v X (2011): Advised a senior Executive in the BAE investigation into alleged corrupt deals in the middle east and eastern Europe.
• R v Margaret Moran MP: Acted for the former MP for Luton South on allegations of fraud in relation to Par-liamentary expenses.
• R v Elliott Morley MP: Acted for the former MP on allegations of fraud in relation to Parliamentary expenses.
• R v David Chaytor MP: Acted for the former MP on allegations of farud in relation to parliamentary expenses.
• R v N (Operation Euripus) (2007): Acted for N who was one of the defendants in the operation Euripus investigation (said to be the largest MTIC fraud ever prosecuted). The case against the defendant was dismissed after our application that there was no case to answer. A subsequent application by HMRC for a voluntary bill of indictment to reinstate the proceedings was opposed successfully with costs against the Crown.
• R v X : Acted for one of the jockeys charged with Kieran Fallon in relation to horse race “fixing”, acquitted after a successful submission of no case.
• R v O (2005): Acted in an SFO prosecution in relation to an alleged fraud on the South African Stock Exchange, case stayed as an abuse of process.
• R v A & Others (Operation Vitric) (2005): Acted in £90 million MTIC Fraud stayed for abuse of process (non-disclosure by Customs).
• R v E & Others (2004): Acted for the first defendant in the largest ever internet “piracy” prosecution brought after the UK co-operated in the US Customs investigation that was known as “Operation Buccaneer ” and which targeted “Warez” groups world-wide. This multi-jurisdictional investigation led to proceedings in the USA, Australia, Scandinavia and Europe.
• R v O (2004): Aalleged fraud on the South African stock exchange, proceedings stayed for abuse of the process of the Court (delay and non-disclosure).
• R v F & Ors (2004): Charges brought by the SFO arising out of the theft of the Cheney Pension Fund.
• R v Y (2004): Acted in the largest ever cigarette smuggling case.
• R v I (2003): £1.8 million investment fraud involving manipulation of sale and purchase orders on investments held with Allied Dunbar.
• R v MV (2002): Acted in a “diversion fraud” centred around London City Bond, conviction quashed as a result of non-disclosure of the use of a participating informant. The subsequent retrial was stayed as an abuse of process.
• R v O (2001): VAT fraud arising out of the “Viking Oaks” scheme.
• R v X & Ors (2000): Large scale cigarette smuggling fraud.
• R v C & Ors (1999): Time share mis-selling fraud.
• R v X (1999): Diversion fraud heard in Newcastle Crown Court.
• R v Y (1998): Clothing counterfeiting fraud heard at Blackfriars.
• R v B 1997: Acted for a defendant in the “Hare Wines” series of diversion frauds heard at Southwark Crown Court.
• R v Dhannotta (1997): VAT fraud (false invoicing and reclaim allegation).
• R v D (1996): Mortgage fraud.
• R v X (1996): First ever prosecution of an alleged fraud on the revenue of another EU member state as a result of activities/business carried on in the UK. Case dismissed after legal submissions.
• R v X (1992): 9 month long gold smuggling VAT fraud, client acquitted.
• R v Y (1992): Mortgage fraud heard at Southampton Crown Court.
• R v Russell (1991): “Missing trader” VAT fraud.
• R v X (1991): “Long firm” fraud.
• R v V (1990): Allegations of fraud committed by presenting bogus “standby letters of credit” to banks in the UK.