What judge told leader of Sainsbury's illegal cleaner scam

He was the judge in charge of the trial of Momodou Chune and five others, which lasted more than a month earlier this summer.

Charges were dropped against one of the women involved in the enterprise, but the remaining five defendants were convicted.

READ MORE: Oxford Magistrates Court results in latest Scales of Justice

This is what the judge said when he sentenced the group on Monday (August 8).

“Between January 2006 and December 2016, you Momodou Chune committed a series of immigration and money laundering offences relating to your recruitment and employment of illegal immigrants and others who had no right to work in the United Kingdom.

“Throughout these 10 years you were a supervisor and manager of two companies, ISS Facility Services and then Exclusive Contract Services Limited, who were contracted by Sainsbury’s to supply cleaning staff for their stores.

“You first came to the United Kingdom in 1993 from your home in The Gambia and you were determined to legally reside and work here.

READ MORE: Jail for leader of illegal worker scam

“The jury heard of your immigration history and that your persistence finally led to you becoming a UK citizen in 2005.

“Your own experience with dealing with the Home Office left you well-equipped to know how the immigration system worked and how illegal immigrants could avoid detection by the authorities and obtain work to support themselves.

“With that knowledge, you went on to deliberately and substantially undermine immigration control in the UK for your own benefit.

“Several of your managers at the two companies gave evidence at the trial – Lisa Hylton, Sean Fox and Debbie Lancaster (who you called as a character witness in your own defence).

“They all spoke highly of your abilities. You were a good supervisor and area manager.

Oxford Mail readers can subscribe for £6 for 6 months in this flash sale. Full details here 👇https://t.co/epEa8HgD3p

— Oxford Mail (@TheOxfordMail) August 2, 2023

"You were described as hard-working, committed and something of a ‘trouble shooter’. If there was a problem at a particular branch, you sorted it out, for example, by bringing in staff from other stores. 

“Recruiting and retaining cleaning staff in this field of work was a real difficulty for all area managers, but you excelled in finding workers. With hindsight, it is obvious how you were so successful.

“You were well known in the West African Community. People looked up to you. You were successful in business. You owned many properties. You held a good job. You looked after those in need.

“People asked for your help in finding them jobs and you were happy to oblige. The fact that you knew or suspected that they had no right to work in the UK was absolutely no bar to you taking them on.

“You were happy to turn a blind eye to obviously fake identity documents such as passports.

"You knew that you were the only manager who saw the original documents and that when you sent photocopies to Head Office it was unlikely they would pick up the errors.

"On occasion, you were prepared to supply false identity documents, such as bank statements.

“Both ISS and ECS trusted you and did not double-check your work. Your employers were, of course, alive to the risks of employing illegal immigrants.

Click here to sign up to our free weekly crime newsletter (Image: Newsquest)

"They made that clear to all managers who recruited staff. It was also company policy that nobody could be employed who did not have a bank account in their own name and that payment of wages into third-party accounts was absolutely forbidden. You were all too well aware of this rule and studiously ignored it.

“Of course, an illegal immigrant could not open bank accounts in their own names, so you sidestepped the problem.

“Wages were paid into your accounts or the accounts of friends and relations of yours – including your former wife, Sabbeh Jeng, and your friends Tumbulu Colley, Helen Tankho and Ebrima Jabang.

“The employees were then paid out in cash. You knew these people you took on were vulnerable due to their lack of immigration status.

"You took advantage of them. Many of them relied on your providing a roof over their heads – though they had to pay for it.

“You were in complete control of them. They did exactly as you directed them. If they refused you threatened to reveal their status.

"If an employee was disciplined, you told them to leave immediately and not attend any disciplinary hearing, lest their status be uncovered.

“Why did you become involved in these crimes? I accept that part of you motive, at least to begin with, was to help fellow West Africans. But self-interest was far more important to you.

“Firstly, you wanted to impress your employers by recruiting staff. But, secondly, there were great financial gains for yourself. The evidence revealed employees being paid for hours they did not actually work.

"Where did the wages for those fictitious hours go? Individual PIN numbers were assigned to each employee in order to log in and out.

"You knew that casual workers were using other employees PINs, for example, when the employee was on leave or absent.

"You took on casual workers. As you knew, they should have had employment contracts. You never gave them such contracts.

“There is no doubt that you made money out of these illegal workers.

"There was video recorded evidence adduced in the trial, for instance, which showed an employee taking cash out of an ATM at a Sainsbury’s store and handing it over to you sitting in your car in the store car park.

"Workers taken on needed to have accommodation. They were housed in your properties and paid you rent – often having to share a single room.

“Immigration officers are aware that illegal immigrants have to work to live, and so have to work undercover. Lowly-paid cleaning jobs are an obvious magnet for such immigrants.

“As a manager, you were keenly aware of the risks of unexpected visits from enforcement officers – several of your staff were arrested in such visits.

“You tried to keep a step ahead of the authorities and moved your staff around the group of stores you managed.

"It helped that you owned houses throughout your area and so could change your employees' accommodation easily as you moved them from one store to another.

“The success of your criminality is shown in a number of ways. You accumulated a property portfolio of 19 properties.

"Your explanation of how you achieved this just does not add up – buy-to-let mortgages, renting out rooms to pay for the mortgages, and so on, is woefully inadequate.

"Where are your accounts, the records of rent paid and owing? Where are the records of wages paid into your accounts and the accounts of those who agreed to receive the wages of your employees?

"Where are the records of payments out? There must have been records, but once the net wages have been paid out and the profit absorbed, the records were destroyed.

"The huge figures shown in the various accounts spell out the scale of your criminality.

“The prosecution closed their case against you on the basis that you were not only the principal offender but that you were in complete control of those you recruited. By their verdicts, the jury clearly agreed.

“But for you I am quite sure that none of your co-defendants would every have committed the offences they have been convicted of.

Momodou Chune Picture: Home Office (Image: Home Office)

“Furthermore, that control continued throughout the course of the trial. To take just one example, the defence advanced at trial by Isaac Nimo was that whatever he did was on the instructions and with the knowledge of his area manager Sean Fox.

"He said that he did not know that what he was doing was either against company policy or was illegal. But this was not the defence he put forward when interviewed.

“Equally tellingly, in cross-examination, his defence statement of March 2022 was put to him. In that statement, he said that whatever he did was on the instructions and with the knowledge of Mohammed Chune. Not a mention of Mr Fox.

“The only reason that he changed his defence was that was what he was told to do so by you. The change made him look ridiculous and his defence untenable.

“But it also demonstrates what you were and what you are. I am reinforced in these conclusions by the fact that when interviewed by the Probation recently for his pre-sentence report, he admitted that he was told to blame Mr Fox by you.

"He did so because he feared you and feared your influence here and abroad.

“Turning to mitigation. Apart from the fact that you are now 55 and have no previous convictions, there is none.

“Of course, there has been a delay of several years since your arrest, but the cause of this is largely on your shoulders. Had you told the truth, this case would have been dealt with years ago.

“The best possible mitigation would have been credit for guilty pleas – especially when the evidence against you was all but overwhelming. Unfortunately, this is not available to you.

“I have also looked for any sign of remorse or contrition for what you did, and the consequences to others, over such a period of time.

"I have searched in vain. It is quite clear from your PSR that you are in complete denial of committing any criminal offence.”

Judge Gledhill said there were no sentencing guidelines for the Immigration Act offences Chune faced. However, he agreed with the assessment by prosecutor Esther Schutzer-Weissmann of the defendant’s culpability – or blameworthiness – and the harm he caused or risked.

“When looking at the appropriate sentence in your case, Momodou Chune, I very much have regard to the totality principle.

"If I passed consecutive sentences for so many specific offences, which in all the circumstances I could do, you would be facing a very long sentence indeed.

“I am of the view that the Immigration Act offences and the money laundering offences are so inextricably linked that I ought to pass concurrent sentences which will adequately reflect your criminality over so many years.

“When assessing the total length of sentence I am guided by the Money Laundering Guidelines.

"Your offending falls into the category of high-level culpability and Category four harm, which deals with amounts ranging from £100,000 to £500,00, based on a starting point of £300,000.

"In your case, the money laundering amounts to £435,906-39. The starting point is therefore five years imprisonment, with a range of five to eight years.”

He imposed six years’ imprisonment and made arrangements for future court hearings where prosecutors will seek to have Chune’s assets forfeited under proceeds of crime rules.

The remaining defendants received suspended prison sentences except for Ebrima Jabang, who fled to Africa on the eve of the jury’s verdicts.

He was jailed for 23 months.