Bhojwani v Att. Gen. [2011] JLR 249 (10 February 2011)

Bhojwani v Att. Gen. [2011] JLR 249 (10 February 2011)

The Royal Court's rejection of the submission of no case to answer was not unreasonable because there was ample evidence to infer the defendant's knowledge and actions regarding money laundering.

Citation
[2011] JLR 249
Parties
Defendant: Bhojwani; Prosecutor: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
submission of no case to answer rejected
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering, Case to Answer
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering Case to Answer

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bhojwani

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecutor

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Submission of No Case to Answer

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a case to answer under Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999, art. 34(1)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

The Royal Court's rejection of the submission of no case to answer was not unreasonable because there was ample evidence to infer the defendant's knowledge and actions regarding money laundering.

Court Disposition

submission of no case to answer rejected