AG -v- Ljungman [2013] JRC 131A (26 June 2013)
The court found that none of Mr Ljungman's contentions had merit and that enforcing the Danish confiscation order in Jersey would not be contrary to the interests of justice. The rationale of the provisions is to assist foreign courts in depriving criminals of the proceeds of crime. The court ordered registration of the external confiscation order.
- Citation
- [2013] JRC 131A
- Parties
- Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Mr Ljungman
- Jurisdiction
- Jersey
- Judgment Date
- 26 June 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Registration of External Confiscation Order / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- application granted
- Legal Topics
- Confiscation Order, Registration of Foreign Judgment, Interests of Justice, Burden of Proof
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Attorney General
Applicant
Mr Ljungman
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Registration of External Confiscation Order / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether enforcing the Danish confiscation order in Jersey would not be contrary to the interests of justice under Article 39 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that none of Mr Ljungman's contentions had merit and that enforcing the Danish confiscation order in Jersey would not be contrary to the interests of justice. The rationale of the provisions is to assist foreign courts in depriving criminals of the proceeds of crime. The court ordered registration of the external confiscation order.
Court Disposition
application granted
Orders
- Registration of the Danish confiscation order in Jersey
- Ancillary directions given to the Viscount regarding possession of funds
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment