SENTENCING STATEMENTS

Lord Cubie made the following comments in court:

“You have each pled guilty to a charge under s 28 of the 2010 Act. This means you accept that you did something that you knew or suspected or ought reasonably to have known or suspected and would enable or further the commission of serious organised crime; and you did so as part of an attempted theft in which you had different roles.

This was a crime which married 21^st century computer sophistication with old fashioned housebreaking in an audacious attempt to steal cryptocurrency worth up to £2 million pounds. It was apparently devised and directed from a prison cell and was only frustrated because the victims had the sense not to open their front door at 11.30pm at night to unknown men, dressed in dark clothing with their faces obscured.

Pleas were tendered on the eve of the trial, so there is some utility in that.

The subject of this attempted theft was digital currency. Users need to have a digital wallet storing codes allowing access to the currency. The digital wallet is unlocked by a private key; a hardware ledger or wallet is a physical device used to securely store private keys. The currency is accessed and moved online.

AnyDesk is a software programme that allows users to access and control any device from anywhere in the world – it is used generally for remote technical support or to share files.

From the agreed narrative, what was proposed in this case was as follows; access to the victims’ house would be obtained by the accused Doyle and Favier who would then have caused the victim to go onto his computer and click on a link and downloaded AnyDesk; This would enable the accused Barr to take control of the couple’s computer from another location, in his case, from the prison.  Having control of the couple’s computer, he would input the receiving cryptocurrency address and transfer the cryptocurrency from the couple’s wallet to other accounts in his control, thus taking the value of the cryptocurrency for his own use.

There was detailed preparation over a long period of months involving a number of individuals, all of which was pieced together by an interrogation of the accused Barr’s phone

There had been intelligence gathering including the identification of the victims as having cryptocurrency; surveillance, of sorts, provision of images and information to identify the precise location of the targeted house; there was reconnaissance; consideration of how and when an approach might be made to the house, before a determination that the house should be approached in darkness; the exchanges of messages plainly contemplated threats and/or violence – for example

• IM GOING TO SEND U A WEBSITE FOR THE BOYS TO MAKE HIM GO ON
• WHEN THEY'RE IN HIS HOUSE GONNA NEED GET HIM ON TO HIS PC FAST N DOWNLOAD ANYDESK RAPID

This planning culminated in the accused Favier and Doyle attending on 17 April 2024 at around 11.30pm. They rang the doorbell but were spoken to through an intercom attached to the doorbell, having been seen on camera. They were not in fact allowed, or able to obtain, entry and left the premises quickly; but from the narrative it is accepted that the accused Doyle at least knew what might be involved and was aware of the possibility of violent or threatening behaviour.

This was a serious crime, a pre-planned and meaningful, although ultimately unsuccessful, attempt to steal a substantial asset which involved the invasion of the home of the victims, a real potential for violence, and if successful, material assistance in the financing of serious and organised crime.

I have read the reports carefully; each of you have had difficulties in childhood and difficulties with substances on and off; each has and some involvement with the criminal justice system.

Mr Barr

You initially seem to distance yourself from the crime as if you had been approached, describing yourself as being “easily led”; that is difficult to reconcile with the steps that you took to facilitate this crime. You have accepted in the narrative being the head of the organised crime group which carried out the offence and are described as a sophisticated cybercriminal with the ability to orchestrate a level of criminality rarely seen within mainstream investigations.

Your concern in the report about the profession of the female victim (a nurse) rings hollow; you knew exactly what you were doing; it is clear you knew that at least two people would go to the house and would “make the victim do something”; your culpability is high. That the harm was not higher was not through anything said or done by you, but due to the failure of the accused Doyle and Favier to obtain access to the property

I note the previous convictions including an analogous offence of fraud involving crypto currency for which you received a sentence of 21 months imprisonment; despite that sentence you organised this offence from your prison cell using plainly illicit means of being in contact or online. These are materially aggravating factors

Your lawyer has said that you have an ongoing relationship with your partner; suffer from a number of conditions which nave contributed to or underlie some of your behaviour and you are in custody awaiting potential extradition. You have spent much of the past six years in custody.

Mr Favier

Your involvement seems the most peripheral of all. Your drug habits at the time tend to support the view that your presence was all that was required, to assist the accused Doyle at the locus in any enforcement of what was required. Your record is limited and the narrative sems to expressly distinguish you from the accused Doyle. Although you claim that it was not your intention to commit a crime I proceed on the basis that you have accepted responsibility for your conduct as part of an overall attempt to steal in excess of £1 million from the victim. Your very presence was an important component in facilitating the use of the AnyDesk software and in trying to overcome the victims’ resistance, if any.

Your lawyer has emphasised the lack of record; your difficult family circumstances resulting in your not seeing your children; your poor mental health and that you were effectively immersed in a personal crisis at the time of this offence.

Mr Doyle

You claim in the report to have understood that you were there only to hand over a telephone; that cannot be reconciled with the agreed narrative where it specifically says that you were aware that there may be some violence or threatening behaviour when you and the accused Favier arrived at the house and your role was to engage in the wider criminal conduct.

You have a poor record, a record which shows your readiness to become involved in violence which tends to undermine your apparent belief that you were just handing over a phone and going to ask the householder to speak to Mr Barr.

I accept that your role was directed by others and in fact did not proceed beyond ringing the bell and failing to obtain access but, as I have said to Mr Favier, your very presence, your willingness to be part of this scheme and your readiness to use threats or violence in furtherance of this attempt makes your involvement serious, and rightly prosecuted in the high court of justiciary

Your lawyer has submitted that your homelessness and lack of financial resources meant that you responded to an offer to earn £100; you only knew one person involved. There was an element of you being used in the furtherance of this crime.

Sentence

The statutory criteria for post release supervision are not made out for any accused.

The sentencing regime for the offence is governed by s 28 of the Criminal Justice And Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 which imposes a maximum sentence of ten years – and I have to recognise that some offence prosecuted under s 28 involve more sustained behaviour and for example use of firearms. But the offending is as I have said serious and brazen.

For Mr Barr; I will continue consideration of the serious crime prevention order until 17 November 2026 at 9.30am within the high court of justiciary in Glasgow. In terms of the sentenced to be imposed if you had been found guilty after trial, I would have imposed a sentence of eight years and ten months – given the timing of the plea, four months beforehand, I modify that to a period of eight years imprisonment which will be served from 25 August 2025 when your previous sentence expired.

Mr Favier - I would have imposed a sentence of four years and three months; given the late plea I will modify that by three months to four years imprisonment; standing time spent on remand between 26 November 2024 and 28 May 2025 (a period of six months), the sentence will be deemed to have commenced on 25 March 2026, six months before your actual remand.

Mr Doyle - I would have imposed a sentence of five years and eight months; due to your plea, that will be modified to five years imprisonment to run from the date of your remand into custody on 28 September 2026

These are the sentences of the court.”

10 November 2026