Disgraced Met officer avoids jail after hiding corrupt husband's shoebox of 'drug money'

[Premi5]

https://www.mylondon.news/news/east-london-news/disgraced-met-officer-avoids-jail-22935311

Disgraced Met officer avoids jail after hiding corrupt husband's shoebox of 'drug money' during police raid

Shareen Kashif's role was uncovered after the police deciphered an Encrochat message chain

 

• SHARE
•  
•  
•  
•  
• 2COMMENTS

 

By

Holly Evans

• 16:15, 31 JAN 2022
• UPDATED16:18, 31 JAN 2022

NEWS

Enter your postcode for local news and info  

A former Met Police officer has avoided jail for hiding a ‘shoebox full of cash’ from her corrupt copper husband whilst their house was being raided by the police. Shareen Kashif, 30, was also aware that her partner PC Kashif Mahmood was part of an organised crime group and had pretended to stop and search drug dealers as a ploy to steal their money.

He was sentenced to eight years imprisonment in May 2021 after pleading guilty to conspiracy to acquire criminal property and misconduct in a public office. Appearing today at Southwark Crown Court, Ms Kashif, who was formerly Central East Command Unit, received a 21 month suspended sentence for successfully hiding an unknown sum of money from the police.

The court heard that on April 28, 2020, police had appeared at the couple’s home in Harlow, Essex, at 2.40am with a search warrant. Whilst in uniform and marked police cars, Mahmood had been stopping known drug couriers under the pretence of issuing stop and search warrants.

It was also noted that Ms Kashif had been a serving Met Police officer at the time, and had previously conducted a number of property search warrants, and would have been aware of the process when hiding the box.

Describing it as a “momentary act”, her defence lawyer Allan Compton QC said: “She was acting under the direction of her husband, it was at his request that she hid the box.”

Whilst acknowledging that she may have acted “spontaneously”, Judge Tomlinson rejected that she was completely in the dark and said that she had “more than limited awareness”.

In his sentencing remarks, he said: “The essence of it, is that just as your husband knew it was only a matter of time before the police came knocking at the door, so were you. In fact you were very angry with him for what he had been up to.

“The sum of money is unknown. As it was the size of the shoebox, I agree with the prosecution that it could not have been less than £10,000 and no more than £100,000.”

He said that whilst her role had a “limited function”, he rejected the assumption that she was not influenced by personal gain.