Mr Kumar is often instructed by solicitors due to his tenacity and incisive cross examination skills of witnesses which results in acquittals. His ability to expose contradictions and to discredit police officers and their evidence whilst exposing weaknesses in Prosecution case, ultimately leads to ‘not guilty’ verdicts.
R v Syed Zaidi & Others
Mr Kumar’s Client (Zaidi) was said to be one of the principal Defendants (this trial involved 6 defendants, whilst the other ‘connected trial’ involved 3 other defendants) in a money laundering operation from a fraudulent sale of house in London. The Prosecution’s case was that £ 250,000.00 of the fraud proceeds was dispersed by the conveyancing solicitors into two accounts, one of the accounts which belonged to Mr Kumar’s Client (Zaidi). The Client faced 9 counts of money laundering charges in a 23 counts indictment which alleged that the fraudulent monies were transacted from his bank account to a number of other individual’s bank accounts. The Client’s case was that although it was his bank account, he did not have control of it at the relevant time and the transfers was actually done by a co-defendant in the same trial – effectively running the ‘cut throat’ defence.
Areas of Expertise
White Collar Crime
Human Rights Law
The Honourable Society of Lincoln’s Inn
Through his cross examination of the said co-defendant with references to his own bank account’s specific transactions and the Client’s account, Mr Kumar was able to show the Client’s bank account was actually controlled by the co-defendant.
After Mr Kumar’s extensive and incisive cross examination of the co-defendant, the Judge directed the jury to return verdicts of ‘not guilty’ on the 8 counts that Mr Kumar’s Client was facing. The co-defendant was eventually found guilty by the jury whilst Mr Kumar’s Client was acquitted of all charges including the principal charge of ‘entering into a money laundering arrangement’ contrary to section 328 (1) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
R v Kodra & Others (Woodgreen Crown Court)
- Led Junior instructed on behalf of Mr Kodra in a 3 months case involving allegations of brothel running and conspiracy to supply Class A drugs namely cocaine. The case involved substantial phone evidence and surveillance evidence of an address in central London. Prosecution case was that Mr Kodra must have involved himself in the drugs operation as his fingerprint was found on one of the carrier bags and he is forensically linked to the drugs.
- Mr Kodra, after trial, was acquitted on the main charge of conspiracy to supply class A drugs.
R v Izmir Basha & Others (Canterbury Crown Court)
- This was a 7 weeks trial involving a complex allegation of conspiracy to supply class A drugs. Mr Kumar was instructed on behalf of one of the principal Defendants who is said to be the controller of the two main ‘drugs phone’ which directed drug sellers to the customers.
Media link –
R v Mandzik & Ors (modern day slavery case)
Instructed as led Junior on behalf of the First Defendant. The case involved complex factual issues and legal arguments on admissibility of evidence on NRM.
Media link –
R v T Ziemys
Allegations of running 10 brothels and control of 3 prostitutes. After trial, Defendant was acquitted of 4 counts which resulted in a much lower sentence than expected (3 and a half years after time served meant 15 months actual imprisonment).
Media link –
R v J Manzi
- Case involved Cross examination of 7 different police officer. Client’s defence was that he was not trying to run over the police officers but panicked and drove the car as he had drugs in the car.
- Incisive cross examination of all police officers by Mr Kumar resulted in a not guilty verdict for lay Client.
Media link –
R v Scriven and Others
Mr. Kumar’s client was indicted with 7 others for conspiracy to supply class A drugs (opium) worth millions of pounds.
The client was arrested with 30.5 kilos opium (worth £ 1.1 million) whilst travelling on the M1 by the Serious Organised Crime Squad. The prosecution allegations included that the drugs were picked up after a shipment and that Mr. Kumar’s client was ‘caught red handed’ with the boxes of drugs for what was a nationwide supply operation.Mr. Kumar had to cross examine police officers on telephone evidence as the defence case was that someone else used the phone to make calls involving the drugs trade.
After a five week trial in Kingston Crown Court which involved a cut throat defence, all co-defendants were found guilty by the jury except for Mr Kumar’s client, in whose case the jury disagreed and could not reach a verdict.
In light of the jury’s findings, the prosecution offered no evidence and Mr. Kumar’s client was acquitted. All other co-defendants received custodial sentence ranging from 7 years up to 20 years imprisonment.
R v Elvidge
- Secured a suspended sentence for lay Client despite the guideline cases suggesting imprisonment sentence for persons impersonating barristers/ solicitors and fraud offences.
R v Joses Springer (Inner London Crown Court)
- Allegations which involved stabbing another and possession of firearms (two separate cases – same Defendant).
Saravanak Kumar has long had an interest in international law and the importance of benefit to be gained in learning from other legal jurisdictions and forging close cultural ties. He is also a door tenant at Kumar Chambers, Malaysia where he had previously advised on large scale fraud cases and civil matters.