Yip, R.

Yip, R.

The verdicts on Counts 6 and 7 were unsafe because the jury was not properly directed on the law relating to 'cheating the Revenue', there was insufficient evidence of specific criminal conduct, and the jury was not properly instructed on the effect of the acquittal on Count 2 regarding the status of the funds as criminal property.

Parties
Respondent: Regina; Appellant: Albert Yip
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; convictions quashed
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Cheating the Revenue, Acquiring Criminal Property, Appeal Procedure, Jury Directions
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Cheating the Revenue Acquiring Criminal Property Appeal Procedure Jury Directions

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Respondent

Albert Yip

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conviction on Counts 6 and 7 for acquiring and removing criminal property was safe
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in directing the jury on the law relating to 'cheating the Revenue'
  3. 3 Whether the acquittal on Count 2 affected the status of funds as criminal property

Ratio Decidendi

The verdicts on Counts 6 and 7 were unsafe because the jury was not properly directed on the law relating to 'cheating the Revenue', there was insufficient evidence of specific criminal conduct, and the jury was not properly instructed on the effect of the acquittal on Count 2 regarding the status of the funds as criminal property.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; convictions quashed

Orders

  • Verdicts on Counts 6 and 7 quashed