In the matter of AG v Scott Joseph Miller [2009] JRC 214 (17 November 2009)

In the matter of AG v Scott Joseph Miller [2009] JRC 214 (17 November 2009)

The court held that the Attorney General's failure to strictly comply with service requirements did not cause injustice, and that Miller failed to satisfy the court that the cash was not tainted; therefore, the cash is forfeited as tainted cash under Article 9(2).

Citation
[2009] JRC 214
Parties
Applicant: Attorney General; Respondent: Scott Joseph Miller
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
17 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Forfeiture Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
forfeiture order granted
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Cash Seizure, Service of Process, Forfeiture Order
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Proceeds of Crime Cash Seizure Service of Process Forfeiture Order

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Attorney General

Applicant

Scott Joseph Miller

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Forfeiture Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Attorney General must seek leave to serve proceedings out of jurisdiction under the Service of Process (Jersey Rules) 1994
  2. 2 Whether the cash seized from Scott Joseph Miller is tainted cash under Article 9(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Cash Seizure)(Jersey) Law 2008

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Attorney General's failure to strictly comply with service requirements did not cause injustice, and that Miller failed to satisfy the court that the cash was not tainted; therefore, the cash is forfeited as tainted cash under Article 9(2).

Court Disposition

forfeiture order granted

Orders

  • £8,000 cash forfeited under Article 9(2) of the Proceeds of Crime (Cash Seizure)(Jersey) Law 2008