Samantha Riggs

Barrister

Established and well regarded leading junior advising and defending corporate and individual defendants in complex fraud and regulatory investigations and prosecutions with extensive experience in environmental crime with particular expertise in waste management/environmental permitting and statutory nuisance.

Sam often advises pre-interview/pre-charge, is accustomed to taking a pro-active approach at the outset of proceedings and is skilled in taking pre-trial challenges including legality of search warrants, abuse of process arguments and interpretation of the Environmental Permitting Regulations. Methodical in the preparation of cases with an eye for detail and skilled in disclosure.

She is extremely dedicated and hard-working. She hates to lose an argument and puts clients at ease. Chambers UK

Experienced in restraint, confiscation and enforcement receivership acting on behalf of defendants and interested third parties.Civil background and experienced in appeals in the VAT Tribunal and before PINs and civil enforcement by the Environment Agency in the High Court. Other regulatory work includes health and safely, food safety, trading standards. Experienced in judicial review.

Listed in Chambers UK 2023 in Band 1 for Environmental and Band 3 for Financial Crime. According to Chambers UK, Samantha is "knowledgeable and can simplify things in a manner a client understands".

Listed in the Legal 500 as a leader in Fraud: Crime and Environment. According to the Legal 500, Samantha is "very smart".

Professional Memberships

Criminal Bar Association
Female Fraud Forum
Fraud Lawyers Association
Proceeds of Crime Lawyers Association (POCLA)
Association of Regulatory and Disciplinary Lawyers (ARDL)
United Kingdom Environmental Law Association (UKELA)
Chartered Institution of Wastes Management (CIWM)
Private Prosecutors’ Association

R v MB & Others (Operation Vaulter) - Multi handed, multi-jurisdictional MTIC fraud involving 19 defendants alleging cheat & money laundering with estimated VAT losses of at least £20 million. The substantial and far reaching investigation, which took over 4 1/2 years, stretched to a number of companies and revealed money movements through Far East, Middle East and Europe. Alleged monies were later transferred to the First Curacao International Bank (FCIB) and subsequently laundered. Representing first on the Indictment said to be an investor and recipient of funds in the fraud. Led junior.
R -v- AB & Others (Operation Barber) - Representing wife of main defendant, in a “Long Firm Fraud” involving nearly 10 years worth of dishonesty and deception on a number of wholesale building merchants based in the Midlands and North East of England. Husband is said to have masterminded the creation of a series of companies, of which wife is an office holder, to secure long lines of credit without paying back any of it before each company liquidates. Losses of millions, most of which, is said have benefitted husband and wife.
R v SH & Others (Operation Tulipbox) - Multi handed, multi-jurisdictional MTIC fraud alleging conspiracy to cheat the Revenue of £38 million of VAT by manipulation of the EU Emissions Trade Scheme (EUETS), which regulates trade in Carbon Credits. The scheme was set up pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol as part of the process to help reduce “Green House Gases”. Alleged substantial profits from the trading was removed from the jurisdiction and transferred to ”trading platforms”/bank accounts in Hong Kong, New Zealand and Australia. Led junior. Acquitted following three month trial.
R v IE - A successful football agent in the North East of England, was charged with four counts of fraud. All of the counts related to his business dealings as football agent for the then Middlesborough (subsequently Aston Villa and Liverpool) and England international footballer Stewart Downing over a number of years. IE was accused of acting dishonestly in breach of trust and the FA Regulation. Following legal argument, two counts stayed as an abuse of process. Following plea negotiations, the Crown accepted a plea to the regulatory offence of failing to keeping accounting records under the Companies Act 1985.
R v AL & Others (Operation Ernest) - AL was charged together with her husband of £110 million invoice factoring fraud said to be the biggest ever in the UK. The fraud was described as being of staggering proportions involving over 900 false invoices and dozens of victims. It caused the collapse of both of the companies involved and put other related companies and one major bank department out of business. The fraud involved the drawing down of monies through complex preference share transactions. AC was acquitted of the main conspiracy but found guilty of false accounting. Junior alone prosecuted by silk & junior.
Darren Lietch T/A London Mobile Communications v- HMRC - Instructed on behalf of appellant in the First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) appealing against a decision to disallow VAT reclaim on the ground of constructive knowledge of the fraud. The appeal concerned 121 supply chains (including allegations of contra trading) involving input tax of £20,512,931. All 94 of the buffer and defaulting traders in the Appellant’s supply chains were assessed for unpaid output tax and./or have had input tax denied. The total loss to the public revenue is over £1.1 billion. Led junior.
R v J-AH & Others (Operation Euripus) - Multi handed, multi-jurisdictional MTIC fraud described as systemic involving the arrest of 43 suspects, the search of 96 premises and 526 dealing chains with the largest ever losses to HM Revenue & Customs, currently estimated at £250 million with money being siphoned off to various countries including the UAE, Hong Kong and Pakistan. Extremely complex money laundering operation associated with the fraud. Confiscation with hidden assets. Led junior.
R v JC & Another - Acting on behalf of Company Director of Cross Country Cars Ltd, which carries on the business of importing and selling 4 wheel drive vehicles sourced from Cyprus and imported into the EU via Belgium who was charged with failing to account for VAT in excess of £900k and Corporation Tax of approximately £1million.
R v Robert Hendy-Freegard [2007] EWCA Crim 1236, (2007) 3 WLR 488, (2007) 2 Cr App R 27 (2007) Crim LR 986 - Appeal against conviction of two counts of kidnapping by fraud and sentence of other financial counts before the Lord Chief Justice who held that the Crown’s attempt to search for an offence which would encapsulate all aspects of the appellant’s conduct and in particular the deprivation as a result of the appellant’s malign influence of deception of his victims to pursue their own lives could not be found in a single count of kidnapping as there was no deprivation of liberty. Conviction quashed life sentences overturned.
DTI v L - £1.1m fraudulent trading in relation to high performance cars. DTI destroyed a bulk of L’s business documents belonging to alleged phoenix company. It was argued on behalf of the accused he could not receive a fair trial nor would it be fair to try him based upon the destruction. Following a lengthy abuse of process argument, which involved the calling of witnesses, the indictment was stayed. The argument was also extended to the second indictment charging L with acting as a company director whilst disqualified. This indictment was also stayed. Led junior.
Trading Standards v LW(J) Ltd & MM - Acting on behalf of company and company director who were acquitted of an alleged £1.4 million jewellery hallmarking fraud. The allegation against the accused involved 60 counts relating to the casting in of counterfeit hallmarks into genuine 9ct gold items to save the assay charges and obtaining by deception. It was alleged that 1.9 tons of jewellery supplied to Littlewoods and Argos contained counterfeit marks. The case turned on scientific and accountancy evidence. Led junior
R v M & Others - Acting on behalf of the Chief Executive of West Yorkshire Metropolitan Air Ambulance (WYMAS) charged with conspiracy to defraud the NHS out of £250k by using his position at WYMAS to fund a failing business aimed at housing 1,000 Filipino nurses. Led junior.

Reported Cases

Robert Hendy-Freegard [2007] EWCA Crim 1236, (2007) 3 WLR 488, (2007) 2 Cr App R 27 (2007) Crim LR 986

Environmental

Environment Agency v S UK Ltd - Junior counsel to David Hart QC instructed on behalf of SITA UK Ltd who is charged with 32 counts of breaches of the environmental permit for Connon Bridge Landfill Site. The matter has been committed to Truro Crown Court listed for a 6 week trial. Co-ordinating the preparation of the case liaising with the technical team at SITA and the three experts instructed to challenge allegations made by the Environment Agency in relation to pollution caused by leachate from the site/odour issues and managing the disclosure process. The company, if convicted, faces a potential fine running into millions given recent case law.
Environment Agency v A - Junior counsel to Andrew Thomas QC on behalf of the Companies and junior counsel to Alistair Webster QC on behalf of the Director. The case revolves around composting and the land spreading industry in Yorkshire and two high profile operations undertaken by the Environment Agency in the North West of England. Two experts have been instructed on behalf of the defence to deal with the technical aspects of the case. This was due to be listed for a 4 month trial in 2017 but when faced with a skeleton argument alleging serious misconduct by the Environment Agency arising out of the disclosure process, the Agency dropped the 64 count indictment.
London Borough of Newham v RMS Ltd - Defence counsel instructed on behalf of the company (handling muck away for Cross Rail with a throughput of 250,000 tonnes of waste per annum) who was charged with 14 breaches of an environmental permit in respect of mobile plant. Same arguments apply as in MB Ltd. Company pleaded guilty to two counts following a legal ruling from the judge but is now the subject of appeal to the Court of Appeal based upon the definition of mobile plant and interaction between the jurisdiction of the Local Authority and the Environment Agency. Continue to advise the company on the validity of the permit conditions relating to the Local Authority permit.
London Borough of Newham v MB - Defence counsel instructed on behalf of the family owned and managed company charged with 8 breaches of an environmental permit in respect of mobile plant. The regulatory remit of the local authority is challenged on the basis that the company is operating waste mobile plant under the Permitting Regulations and therefore the regulator is the Environment Agency not the local authority. The matter is listed for legal argument following the ruling of the Court of Appeal. Further, in the alternative, it is not accepted that the LBN has jurisdiction to prosecute under the Permitting Regulations because the principal place of business of the company is outside the borough.
London Borough of Newham v MC - Defence counsel on behalf of company and company director charged with operating a regulated facility namely a concrete batching plant without a permit. Cautions accepted. Continue to act on behalf of the company challenging the validity of the permit conditions before the planning inspectorate. The Local Authority is insisting on disproportionate permit conditions because it has failed to understand it is regulating a concrete batching plant as opposed to a cement batching plant which technically is a distinctly different operation.
R v JS & Others (Operation Eclipse) [2014] EWHC 2068 (Admin); (2014) 178 JP 336, [2014] Envir LR 31, [2014] Lloyd’s Rep FC 685, [2015] Crim LR 158. Search warrant quashed in multi handed money laundering allegations arising out of the operation of a waste transfer station allegedly in breach of an Environmental Permit and illegal depositing of waste. This was a joint Regional Asset Recovery Team and Environment Agency investigation alleging that in excess of £2.5mill has been avoided in landfill tax. The allegation was challenged as flawed on the basis landfill tax is not the responsibility of the operator of a waste transfer station and a landfill gate fee is not payable until waste is transferred to the landfill. It was not accepted there has been any illegal depositing of waste or money laundering. It was advanced on behalf of the claimant that the Magistrates Court had been misled by the Environment Agency and the ambit of the search warrant was too wide. LJ Pitchford following the quashing of the warrant ordered the return of all papers seized during the raids and copies to be destroyed. All suspects were released from police bail. The prosecuting authorities have accepted liability in a civil action for unlawful arrest. Quantum to be determined.
Environment Agency v WW - Defence counsel instructed on behalf of the company, one of the largest independently owned commercial recycling and waste management companies in the West Midlands charged with being in breach of their environment permit for storing excess waste on site. Environment Agency officers to be challenged over the necessity and enforceability of permit conditions and the methodology for measuring waste. Expert was instructed to carry out tests to demonstrate the flaws in the methodology. Successfully negotiated a basis of plea limiting the liability of the company.
Environment Agency v S UK Ltd - Defence counsel instructed on behalf of SITA UK Ltd who pleaded guilty, following negotiations, to two counts of breach of the environmental permit for Albury Landfill Site and failing to comply with an enforcement notice. The company was fined £110k under the new sentencing guidelines. This sentence is currently the subject of appeal on the basis that the Magistrates did not give adequate reduction for the early guilty pleas.
Environment Agency v SL - Defence counsel instructed on behalf of the company director charged on a 24 count indictment with breaches of Environment Permit and keeping controlled waste without a licence. Issues over who was the “operator” of the regulated facility. Negotiated a basis of plea to three counts on the Indictment resulting in £3k fine and no proceeds of crime.Further retained by the director is who also facing another Environment Agency investigation resulting from a serious fire, which attracted mass-media attention.Awaiting decision from the Environment Agency as to whether any charges are to be brought.
Environment Agency v WM - Junior counsel in the Crown Court on behalf of the company charged with depositing waste without an environmental permit in pits. Argued material not waste because it met end of waste criteria. Prosecution dropped the prosecution the week before trial based upon the skeleton argument submitted on behalf of the defendant company. Also acting on behalf of the defendant company, who has failed to reduce excess waste at its regulated facility resulting in contempt proceedings in the High Court. Currently listed for technical argument over the veracity of Lidar evidence secured by the Environment Agency challenged by the defence expert.
Environment Agency v AH & Others - Counsel instructed on behalf of company director charged with operating a regulated facility without a permit. The company treated waste wood under a T6 exemption. Led argument on an application to dismiss, that the facility was not a “regulated facility” within the meaning of the Environmental Permitting Regulations but an exempt facility. Indictment dismissed. The Environment Agency successfully sought a voluntary bill of indictment and therefore the matter is back before the Crown Court. There is no avenue of appeal from the High Court and therefore an application to dismiss the case will be made on the same legal principles as before when the matter is listed next year for trial.

Health and Safety

Asda Stores v Wandsworth BC [2007] EWHC 433 (Admin) Prosecuted Asda for offences under the Food Safety (General Food Hygiene) Regulations 1995 relating to a rodent infestation at the store. Asda sought to challenge the validity of the charges by way of Case Stated arguing they were bad for duplicity. The Divisional Court held on the true construction of the Regulations, Schedule 1 paragraph 3 created more than one offence and differentiated between the need to protect against the contamination of the food and need to have adequate measures in place to ensure pests were controlled.
London Borough of Wandsworth v Asda Stores - Prosecuted Asda for offences under HSWA and various regulations for a series of accidents (57 in total) that occurred on a travelator at the store resulting in personal injury to a number of victims. Successfully opposed an abuse of process application in respect of the fairness of the proceedings given the number of charges.

Reported Cases

Leitch (t/a London Mobile Communications) v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 229
Olu & Ors. R. v [2010] EWCA Crim 2975
Ethos Recycling v Barking and Dagenham Magistrates’ Court & London Borough of Barking and Dagenham [2009] EWHC 2885 (Admin) (Under appeal)
Asda Stores v Wandsworth BC [2007] EWHC 433 (Admin)