1998/4 - AG v Young and Cantrade [1998] UR 4 (12 January 1998)

1998/4 - AG v Young and Cantrade [1998] UR 4 (12 January 1998)

Proceedings are instituted when the charge is formally put to the defendant, and the limitation period runs from the date the victim, as a result of inducement, takes part in the arrangements. The offence is not continuing unless new acts or inducements occur. On the facts as currently pleaded, certain counts are time-barred against certain defendants, but the Crown may particularise its case further at trial. The objection that the facts cannot be brought within Article 12(c) cannot be determined at this stage and is deferred to trial.

Citation
[1998] UR 4
Parties
First Defendant: Robert John Young; Second Defendant: Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C. I.) Limited; Third Defendant: Peter Robert Stoneman; Fourth Defendant: Alfred George Williams; Prosecution: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 January 1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Preliminary Ruling on Time Bar and Applicability of Statute
Outcome
Preliminary objections on time-bar succeed in part; certain counts are time-barred as currently pleaded. Objection on applicability of Article 12(c) deferred to trial.
Legal Topics
Fraud, Limitation Periods, Institution of Proceedings, Interpretation of Statutes, Corporate Criminal Liability
Criminal Law Financial Regulation Fraud Limitation Periods Institution of Proceedings Interpretation of Statutes Corporate Criminal Liability

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert John Young

First Defendant

Cantrade Private Bank Switzerland (C. I.) Limited

Second Defendant

Peter Robert Stoneman

Third Defendant

Alfred George Williams

Fourth Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Preliminary Ruling on Time Bar and Applicability of Statute

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether charges are time-barred under Article 2 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Jersey) Law, 1978
  2. 2 When proceedings are instituted for the purposes of limitation
  3. 3 Whether the facts alleged can be brought within Article 12(c) of the Investors (Prevention of Fraud) (Jersey) Law, 1967

Ratio Decidendi

Proceedings are instituted when the charge is formally put to the defendant, and the limitation period runs from the date the victim, as a result of inducement, takes part in the arrangements. The offence is not continuing unless new acts or inducements occur. On the facts as currently pleaded, certain counts are time-barred against certain defendants, but the Crown may particularise its case further at trial. The objection that the facts cannot be brought within Article 12(c) cannot be determined at this stage and is deferred to trial.

Court Disposition

Preliminary objections on time-bar succeed in part; certain counts are time-barred as currently pleaded. Objection on applicability of Article 12(c) deferred to trial.

Orders

  • Crown put on notice that certain counts will fail if pursued as currently pleaded and not particularised to avoid prescription.
  • Parties may make further submissions on time-bar at a future hearing.