Napoli v R.

Napoli v R.

There was sufficient evidence for a properly directed jury to conclude that the appellant carried on the regulated activity of accepting deposits by way of business and did not fall within the exemption under Article 2(1) of the 2001 Business Order. The judge was correct to reject the submission of no case to answer.

Parties
Appellant: John Francis Napoli; Respondent: The Queen
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 May 2012
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unauthorised Regulated Activity, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Accepting Deposits by Way of Business, Interpretation of 'by Way of Business', Article 2(1) Financial Services and Markets Act (carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) Order 2001
Criminal Law Financial Regulation Unauthorised Regulated Activity Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 Accepting Deposits by Way of Business Interpretation of 'by Way of Business' Article 2(1) Financial Services and Markets Act (carrying on Regulated Activities by Way of Business) Order 2001

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Francis Napoli

Appellant

The Queen

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant carried on a regulated activity by way of business within the meaning of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000
  2. 2 Whether Article 2(1) of the 2001 Business Order applied to exempt the appellant's conduct
  3. 3 Whether there was sufficient evidence for the case to go to the jury

Ratio Decidendi

There was sufficient evidence for a properly directed jury to conclude that the appellant carried on the regulated activity of accepting deposits by way of business and did not fall within the exemption under Article 2(1) of the 2001 Business Order. The judge was correct to reject the submission of no case to answer.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed