Sachin Rajput

Sachin enjoys representing clients across the whole spectrum of offences.  He is experienced in representing clients charged with some of the most serious offending with current instructions including murders, other violent offences, sexual offences, money laundering and immigration fraud.  

Instructing solicitors consider Sachin to be a very safe pair of hands, who puts client care first and strives to achieve the best for every client, often achieving favourable results against all odds.

• Murder and serious violence
• Fraud, money laundering and confiscation proceedings
• Large scale drug conspiracies
• Sexual offences
• General crime

Homicide and serious violence

• R v. J – Murder. The defendant faced trial for murder along with two co-defendants. Manslaughter was added in the alternative at trial. This concerned a stabbing in a busy north-London street. The defendant was acquitted of murder and manslaughter after trial.
• R v. H – Murder and Attempted murder. The male victim was stabbed to death in a West-London street. The elderly female victim was also stabbed during the same incident and survived. The defendant was deemed unfit to stand trial. An ‘actus reus’ trial took place to prove the act.
• R v. E – Wounding with intent, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, assault by beating and possession of an offensive weapon. The principal victims were the defendant’s partner, who suffered several knife injuries including having her throat slit and the defendant’s daughter whom he was said to have attempted to stab several times and who suffered actual bodily harm injury. A neighbour was also assaulted with a baton.
• R v. M – Murder. The defendant was charged along with several co-defendants in this well-planned revenge murder. The trial was split into two tranches. The defendant was acquitted of murder but convicted in the alternative of manslaughter. The length of the sentence was successfully appealed at the Court of Appeal.  
• R v. H – Attempted murder and possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life. The defendant was charged with another in relation to the drive by shooting of a male who suffered life changing injury.
• R v. W – Murder. The victim suffered head injury as a result of striking the pavement after being flung to the ground which subsequently resulted in his death.
• R v. R – Unlawful wounding. Victim suffered a broken eye socket and skull.
• R v. B – Possession of a firearm with intent to endanger life – Discharging of a firearm through a bedroom window from which someone had just appeared.
• R v. M – Multi-handed case involving weapon-enabled violence, robbery, kidnap and false imprisonment of a male and his girlfriend.
• R v. D – Multi-handed violent disorder including a fatality. The defendant faced proceedings along with several co-defendants, including for conspiracy to cause grievous bodily harm on his part.
• R v. B – Murder. Resulting from a fatal stabbing in a busy London bar.

Sexual offences

• R v. A – Sexual assault allegation on the London Underground tube network.
• R v. C – Rape. The defendant was charged with stranger rape involving the added trauma of robbing and thieving from his victim.
• R v. M – Serious sexual assault by penetration by a previously convicted sex-offender against his cousin.
• R v. H – Serious sexual assault alleged on numerous occasions including penetration by a male of his step-granddaughter.
• R v. D – Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent. Vulnerable mentally disabled male forced to engage in penetrative sex with the defendant.

Organised crime and general crime

• R v. P – Importation of drugs (cocaine) from Brazil through London Heathrow Airport.
• R v. D – Human trafficking and modern-day slavery. The defendant was tried with another in relation to involvement in arranging or facilitating travel of several victims into the United Kingdom who were then said to have been exploited in the workplace over a number of years.
• R v. V – Administering a drug with intent and associated fraud and theft. The defendant was prosecuted for this spate of pan-London offending involving meeting men, either in bars or from dating platforms and then returning home with them where she would drug them, in many cases having had consensual sexual activity with the victims. When they woke from having been poisoned, they had been the victims of theft and fraud.  
• R v. N – Multi-handed case of kidnapping along with robbery, false imprisonment, blackmail and burglary on the indictment.
• R v. M – The defendant herself was a female prostitute who was charged along with others with conspiracy to traffic persons into and also within the United Kingdom for sexual exploitation. She was also charged with controlling prostitution for gain and related money laundering offending. The prosecution brought against the criminal gang involved both UK police and the Romanian authorities and many prosecution witnesses gave evidence via live-link from a Romanian Court.
• R v. T – Cash-transit / ATM armed robbery, including possession of a firearm, with a loss of c. £235,000.
• R v. C – Importation of drugs (Khat) through London Southend Airport
• R v. N – The defendant was prosecuted with others for armed robbery concerning the robbing of a number of jewellers with the use of serious violence including the use of a stun gun.
• R v. D – Conspiracy to steal motor vehicles and receiving stolen motor vehicle. Large scale theft of luxury cars for part stripping.
• R v. S – Armed Robbery. The defendant was prosecuted along with others after a Flying Squad investigation, involving twelve armed robberies on bookmakers in London and the home-counties with the use of firearms.
• R v. S – Controlling prostitution for gain. Organised sex parties with an allegation of trafficked women partaking alongside consenting pornographic models.

Fraud, Money laundering and Proceeds of Crime (POCA)

• R v. P – The defendant was a leading role in this advance fee fraud conspiracy with 187 victims across the country and a loss exceeding £1 million.
• R v. P – The defendant was a leading role in this conspiracy defrauding a well-known national business with around £280,000 losses suffered.
• R v. G – Having custody or control of false instruments and converting criminal property. The defendant was charged with several others in this prosecution brought by the Royal Mail Group concerning the importation from China of millions of high-quality counterfeit United Kingdom postage stamps and their associated storage and distribution within the United Kingdom.
• R v. A – The defendant was a company director prosecuted along with other professional businessmen in relation to money laundering.
• R v. D – Conspiracy to defraud and money laundering involving several senior charity figures with a c. £5.5 million loss suffered as a result of the Gift Aid fraud.
• R v. H – Immigration fraud – The defendant was prosecuted along with others following a Panorama exposé into mass-scale fake student exam-sittings and production of fraudulent banking material and qualifications to permit extensions to student visas for foreign nationals otherwise not entitled to the same.
• R v. M – Cheating the public revenue. The defendant was a qualified accountant and director concerned with defrauding HMRC to the sum of c. £170,000.
• R v. C – Theft and Fraud. Theft of significant sums of money over a lengthy period of time by a carer in significant breach of trust.