Stan Reiz#6550

Stan Reiz, KC

Barrister, 2 Bedford Row
Stan Reiz KC specialises in representing individuals and corporates in all aspects of financial crime. He successfully represented a HNW property developer charged with Cheating the Public Revenue out of millions of pounds in tax; achieved the discharge of an account freezing order for another HNW director of property development companies; defended a practising doctor prosecuted by the FCA for Financial Services Act offences arising from the selling of shares; secured a suspended sentence for a money transmitter who breached the Money Laundering Regulations by transferring in excess of £10 million obtained from fraud out of the jurisdiction; and acted for numerous company directors accused of investment frauds, including professionals working in the provision of legal, accountancy and financial services.
 
Mr Reiz KC appeared for the appellant in the reported case of R v Haque (Mohammed) [2020] 1 Cr App R 12; [2020] WLR (D) 49 in which the Court of Appeal quashed a conviction for money laundering on technical grounds as the prosecution had wrongly charged the appellant with an offence under section 329 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
 
Mr Reiz KC defended a de facto trustee of numerous charities accused of facilitating a multi-million pound international money laundering arrangement using the charities as front to conceal international currency trades.

Mr Reiz KC appeared in complex confiscation proceedings for an individual who had been convicted of insider trading offences. He also advised a client being investigated by the DBIS for breaching the Export Control Order 2008, which regulates the international trade of arms and ammunition. Following a lengthy investigation, no further action being taken against him.

Mr Reiz KC has represented corporates accused of trading standards and regulatory offences.
Contributed to

3

Mitigation in the sentencing of criminal offences
Mitigation in the sentencing of criminal offences
Practice notes

This Practice Note explains the purpose and scope of mitigation given on behalf of defendants convicted of criminal offences by the criminal courts in England and Wales, in order to reduce the sentence imposed by the courts. It covers the law relating to mitigation, which is any aspect of a case that reduces the severity of the sentence passed, either the length of sentence or type of sentence imposed. It explains the factors that determine sentence, the purpose of mitigation, what is meant by personal mitigation and a suggested structure of a plea in mitigation and provides links to the Sentencing Council’s sentencing guidelines including the General guideline—overarching principles (the General guideline) which provides expanded explanations for aggravating factors and mitigating factors, culpability and harm and applies to all individual offenders aged 18 or over and to organisations who are sentenced.

Restitution and deprivation orders in criminal proceedings
Restitution and deprivation orders in criminal proceedings
Practice notes

This Practice Note covers restitution and deprivation orders following criminal conviction under the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020). It explains the power to order restitution of stolen goods to victims in criminal proceedings and how to appeal a restitution order. The Practice Note also explains the power of the courts to order the forfeiture of property connected with the commission of an offence by making a deprivation order, the procedure for the making an order for deprivation and the effect of a deprivation order.

Sexual harm prevention orders
Sexual harm prevention orders
Practice notes

This Practice Note explains the power to make and effect of a conviction based sexual harm prevention order (SHPO) under sections 343–349 of the Sentencing Act 2020 (SA 2020). SHPOs can also be otherwise than in connection with a conviction under sections 103A–103K of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003). When they were brought in as a result of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, SHPOs replaced sexual offences protection orders (SOPOs) and foreign travel orders (FTOs) in England and Wales. This Practice Note examines the statutory criteria that must to be satisfied before the court can impose an SHPO, the minimum and maximum time for a travel ban or the fixed period (duration), the powers of the court to renew, vary or discharge a post conviction SHPO, interim SHPOs and the procedure for obtaining an order. It also considers offences of breach of an SHPO and the Sentencing Council’s guidelines for judges and magistrates to apply when they are sentencing offenders who have breached SHPOs.

Practice Area

Panel

  • Contributing Author

Qualified Year

  • 2001

Year Taken Silk

  • 2020

Experience

  • Carmelite Chambers (2011 - 2016)
  • 15 New Bridge Street Chambers (2005 - 2011)
  • 5 Pump Court Chambers (2003 - 2005)
  • 46 Essex Street Chambers (2001 - 2003)

Membership

  • Fraud Lawyers Association
  • Criminal Bar Association

Qualification

  • LLB (1999)

Education

  • Inns of Court School of Law (1999-2000)
  • University of Warwick (1996-1999)

If you expected to see yourself on this page, click here.