R v Wilkie [2008] NSWSC 1064

R v Wilkie [2008] NSWSC 1064

A charge under s 232(2) of the Corporations Law does not require as an essential element the acquisition of profit or the presence of a conflict of interest; the offence is not limited to breaches of fiduciary duty.

Parties
Crown: REGINA (Commonwealth); Accused: Daniel Wilkie
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Application for Directed Acquittal at Close of Crown Case
Outcome
Motion for directed acquittal refused
Legal Topics
Directed Verdict, Director Duties, Dishonesty Offences
Criminal Law Corporate Law Directed Verdict Director Duties Dishonesty Offences

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

REGINA (Commonwealth)

Crown

Daniel Wilkie

Accused

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Application for Directed Acquittal at Close of Crown Case

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a directed acquittal should be granted on counts 1 and 3 alleging breach of s 232(2) of the Corporations Law

Ratio Decidendi

A charge under s 232(2) of the Corporations Law does not require as an essential element the acquisition of profit or the presence of a conflict of interest; the offence is not limited to breaches of fiduciary duty.

Court Disposition

Motion for directed acquittal refused