James Stunt said today during his £266 million money-laundering trial that he kept enormous sums of cash owing to his gambling habit and had even given his mother-in-law £500,000 in cash to assist him in purchasing a $2 million Monet painting.
A money-laundering scheme allegedly involves the movement of tens of millions of pounds in cash between the former spouse of Formula 1 heiress Petra Ecclestone’s firm and NatWest bank.
Stunt, 40, testified before a jury at Leeds Cloth Hall Court today that he often kept significant sums of cash on hand for gambling and even had a “strong room” in his married home in Los Angeles.
He claimed that it was “my money” and that “the majority of it was casino gaming gains that were tax-free.”
Stunt admitted to the court that he sometimes engaged in “gambling” with his ex-father-in-law, Formula 1 magnate Bernie Ecclestone, claiming that “He would give me cash rather than a bookie.”
Stunt, who previously referred to himself as the “second largest gambler in the world,” claimed to frequent all the renowned casinos in London.
He told the jurors, “I had a £5 million credit line at every casino in London and Las Vegas.”
Additionally, he said that he had easy access to funds. In order to assist him in purchasing a $2 million Monet artwork in 2012, he sent his mother-in-law Slavica £500,000 in cash. She was required since she lived in Switzerland, he claimed.
About his company’s “joint venture” with Bradford gold bullion dealer Fowler Oldfield, the tycoon was questioned.
Because “we had the money,” according to Stunt, he was allowed to keep 70% of the earnings, while Fowler Oldfield, who was “bringing consumers” for the gold company, was entitled to 30%.
The business strategy of Stunt, according to the court, was to get “raw” gold and refine it in a facility in Sheffield to produce high-quality gold bars.
According to the prosecution, the plan included the conversion of “dirty currency” into untraceable gold using illegal funds that were funneled via the offices of Stunt & Co. and into Fowler Oldfield’s NatWest bank account.
Despite the fact that he gave his business associates Greg Frankel and Alexander Tulloch free use of his two residences in Chelsea Harbour, he argued that there was nothing wrong with it and that being kind was just “who I am.”
All of the defendants in the money-laundering case—Heidi Buckler, 45; Greg Frankel, 44; Paul Miller, 45; Haroon Rashid, 51; Daniel Rawson, 45; Francesca Sota, 34; Stunt; and Alexander Tulloch, 41—deny it. Also denying forgery are Stunt and Sota.
Stunt made headlines last week during the hearings when he spoke about the size of his genitalia and said, “I don’t believe we need to get the microscope out,” when testifying for the first time.
He said that despite seeming to be a “glammy fool,” he had a “hyperintelligent” grasp of business.
The billionaire acknowledged before the jury that he loved “living it up” and “playing up” to his image.
He told the judge, “Having your life exposed naked like this, we have to analyze the good, the terrible, and the ugly, and I do sometimes play up to the public image, but there’s also insecurity.”
“You must have the tiniest penis in the world,” people have said about me. There must be some symbolic truth to it, but I don’t believe we need to get a microscope out.”
The court was shown a picture of the beaming socialite standing with King Charles when he claimed that he and his ex-wife used mobile phones to converse in their’so enormous’ Los Angeles estate.
The court was aware of Stunt’s previous connections to the King via his many endeavors.
He said before the court that the then-Prince of Wales had written a eulogy, which was given at the ceremony, for the burial of Stunt’s elder brother Lee, 37, in 2016.
The Prince’s Trust received £65,000 from Stunt, while Dumfries House received £50,000.
He admitted to the jury that he previously loaned Sir Michael Peat, the former chief private secretary of Charles, office space.
When his lawyer Richard Fisher KC questioned Stunt about the picture, he said he was unsure of the precise time it was shot but that it was between 2014 and 2016, which is the time frame included by the criminal accusation.
“That’s now King Charles III, was the Prince of Wales,” he said. It was possibly taken in St. James’ Palace or Clarence House.
I’m not sure which, but it’s definitely not Buckingham Palace.
I went to Buckingham Palace, although not on this particular date. There are many pictures of myself with His Majesty.
The trial goes on.