Given the document below, you have to determine if "Yes" or "No", the summary is factually consistent with the document.

Document:
NAME_1, 35, was sentenced to 14 years in 2012 for drug-dealing. From prison he told his now estranged wife NAME_2, 37, to unearth cash buried in their Bedford garden. She has been jailed for nine months. Her mother NAME_3, 58, and sister NAME_4, 28, were given 12-month sentences for helping her. NAME_1 was sentenced to 22 months, after admitting concealing criminal property, to run consecutively to his 14-year term. His wife also pleaded guilty to the charge, but the NAME_5 NAME_6, who she enlisted but who denied the accusations, were found guilty last month. Judge NAME_7, sitting at Amersham Law Courts for Aylesbury Crown Court, said the Masciopintos would have been jailed for longer if they had not admitted the crime. Cash was found by police stuffed around the Bedford homes of NAME_2, in Redhall Close, and her mother's in

Summary:
1. A husband and wife have been jailed for conspiring to hide more than PS300,000 in a "sophisticated" attempt to hide criminal proceeds from police.

Is the summary factually consistent with the document? (Yes/No)
Start your answer explicitly with "Yes" or "No", and if you answer no, explain which sentence is inconsistent and why.
