Legal Risk masthead

AML Cases

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

A

B

C

D

  • Da Silva (R v Da Silva)

    [2006] EWCA Crim 1654    
    Decided under s.93A Criminal Justice Act 1988 but equally relevant to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.  The words "suspect" and "suspicion" meant that the defendant had to think that there was a possibility, which was more than fanciful, that the relevant facts existed. A vague feeling of unease would not suffice, but the statute did not require the suspicion to be clear or firmly grounded or based upon reasonable grounds.

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/1654.html

G

  • Gabriel (R v Gabriel)

    [2006] EWCA Crim 229
    Profits made from trading in legitimate goods were not necessarily converted into criminal property by a failure to declare them to the Inland Revenue or the Department of Work and Pensions.  The failure to declare the profits for the purposes of income tax could give rise to a criminal offence but it did not make the trading itself an offence.

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/229.html
  • Gale & Anor v SOCA

    |2011| UKSC 49
    Supreme Court held that the application of civil standard of proof in civil recovery proceedings did not breach Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights .

    http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2011/49.html
  • Geary (R V Geary)

    [2010] EWCA Crim 1925
    The Court of Appeal quashed the defendant’s conviction for money laundering under section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: ‘In our view the natural and ordinary meaning of section 328(1) is that the arrangement to which it refers must be one which relates to property which is criminal property at the time when the arrangement begins to operate on it. To say that it extends to property which was originally legitimate but became criminal only as a result of carrying out the arrangement is to stretch the language of the section beyond its proper limits. An arrangement relating to property which has an independent criminal object may, when carried out, render the subject matter criminal property, but it cannot properly be said that the arrangement applied to property that was already criminal property at the time it began to operate on it.’ (Paragraph 19). Practitioners will therefore need to consider carefully whether the circumstances they are considering involve laundering of the proceeds of crime, or merely the initial crime itself.

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2010/1925.html
  • Green (R v Green)

    [2007] EWCA Crim 1248
    Where one defendant receives money or other property jointly on behalf of several other defendants each defendant is regarded as having received the whole of it for the purposes of confiscation proceedings. It does not matter if one defendant had received the whole sum, retained his 'share' and passed the balance on. The capacity in which he received it is the test 

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2007/1248.html

H

I

J

K

  • K Limited v National Westminster Bank and others

    [2006] EWCA Civ 1039
    The court would not grant an injunction requiring a bank to pay money to a customer's order, where the bank had reported a suspicion of money laundering and sought consent, nor would the court permit cross-examination as to the grounds for the bank's suspicion; it was a subjective test and there was no legal requirement that there should be reasonable grounds for suspicion. The bank had adopted the correct procedure to avoid a tipping off offence, when application was made for the injunction, by instructing solicitors to write pursuant to section 333 (2) (c) and (3) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 identifying the bare fact that the bank had made a disclosure to Customs.    

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2006/1039.html

M

N

P

R

S

T

U