Jersey Judgment

AG -v- Caversham and Bell [2005] JRC 143 (13 October 2005)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

A single failure to maintain prescribed procedures, if not a mere oversight, is sufficient to constitute an offence under Article 37(4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999; systemic failure is not required.

Court disposition

application for no case to answer dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants must proceed to present their defence.

02

Material facts

Parties

Mr Bell

Defendant Counsel: Advocate Baker

Company 1

Defendant Counsel: Advocate Baker

Company 2

Defendant Counsel: Advocate Baker

Crown

Prosecution

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Criminal / Submission of No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Advocate Baker argued that the offence is intended to prevent systemic failures, not isolated omissions, and that a criminal offence should not arise from a single failure without evidence of broader procedural lapses.
Respondent
The Crown alleged a sustained failure to verify the identity of Mr Bell, asserting that the breach of prescribed procedures in this case is sufficient for criminal liability.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Commissioner's interpretation of Article 37(4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999

    Maintenance of prescribed procedures is an absolute duty; a single breach, if more than a mere oversight, is sufficient for criminal liability.

  2. 02

    Article 37(10) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999

    It is a defence to prove all reasonable steps and due diligence were exercised to avoid committing the offence.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

A single failure to maintain prescribed procedures, if not a mere oversight, is sufficient to constitute an offence under Article 37(4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999; systemic failure is not required.

Obiter and limits

  • Guidance notes refer to regular certification and compliance as general discipline, not as a threshold for criminal liability.

Court disposition

application for no case to answer dismissed

  • Defendants must proceed to present their defence.

Source and reliance status

Official court record

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court record

Judgment

[2005] JRC 143

JUDGMENT THE commissioner: 1. The three Defendants in this case are charged on two Counts. Failing to comply with the requirements of Article 2 1(a) of the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order, 1999 , contrary to Article 37 (4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999 , and then those two are broken down into different components when the particulars of offence are set out. At the close of the Prosecution case, Defence counsel Advocate Baker submitted that there was no case to answer. Article 37 (4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, , reads:- "If a person carrying on a financial services business contravenes or fails to comply with a requirement that is contained in any Order made under this Article and applies to that business, the person shall be guilty of an offence." And Article 2 1 of the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order, 1999 , says: (1) No person shall, in the course of any financial services business carried on by him or her in Jersey, form a business relationship, or carry out a one-off transaction, with or for another person unless - (a) the person carrying on the financial services business maintains the following procedures in relation to his or her business - (i) identification procedures in accordance with Articles 3 and 5, (ii) record-keeping procedures in accordance with Article 8, (iii) internal reporting procedures in accordance with Article 9, and (iv)

such other procedures of internal control and communication as may be appropriate for the purposes of forestalling and preventing money laundering; 2. The nub of Advocate Baker's argument is that the offence charged is intended to prevent a systemic failure in the maintenance in procedures. He argues that it was not in the concept of the law and a criminal offence should not be made for one failure or omission when there is no other evidence of failure. We agree that the Crown has provided no evidence of a failure over a period of time or with more than one client. There is, for example, no evidence of a failure to maintain procedures in any but this particular case. As far as Mr Bell and the two companies are concerned, there is no criticism of them at all, apart from this particular case.

3. The offences of course are particularised but all three Defendants are charged with an offence that has two elements and they turn around the prohibited act of forming a relationship with Gary Stevens and the failure to make procedures in that particular case, for, as I have said, there is no other.

4. Now Article 37 (10) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999 , says this: "In proceedings against a person, or an offence under this Article, it is a defence to prove that the person took all reasonable steps and exercised due diligence to avoid committing the offence." 5. This leads me to suppose (and I have had regard to the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary, rather than cases on the English Highways), that maintenance must be kept up and prescribed and in my view maintenance is an absolute duty and one breach, if it is more than a mere oversight, is in my view sufficient for the purposes of a criminal trial. If, as the Crown alleges (and we haven't heard the defence case as yet), there was a sustained failure to verify the identity of Mr Bell then the particulars so clearly set out in the guidance notes that we have seen are in my view breached. Of course the guidance notes refer to a regular basis for certifying compliance and other procedures, but that is a general guide in my view to maintain good discipline.

6. If an offence has occurred, then there has been a breach of the maintenance and procedures. It is specifically in the case of failure, if such it was, to identify Mr Lee, of whom Mr Stevens was the Attorney, no more and no less that constitutes the basis of this prosecution and in my view the application does not succeed. Authorities Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999. Money Laundering (Jersey) Order, 1999. Page Last Updated: 15 Oct 2015 BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Money Laundering (Jersey) Order, 1999

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.