1998/94 - AG v Young, Cantrade Private Bank and Williams [1998] UR 94 (8 May 1998)

1998/94 - AG v Young, Cantrade Private Bank and Williams [1998] UR 94 (8 May 1998)

Deliberate misleading statements to induce investment are highly anti-social and warrant substantial custodial sentences; reckless misleading statements by a bank, though less culpable, demand significant financial penalties due to the bank's societal role.

Citation
[1998] UR 94
Parties
Defendant: Dr Young; Defendant: Mr Williams; Defendant: Union Bank of Switzerland (subsidiary); Prosecution: Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
08 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Sentencing
Outcome
conviction and sentencing
Legal Topics
Misleading Statements, Investment Fraud, Recklessness, Sentencing, Banking Offences
Criminal Law Financial Regulation Misleading Statements Investment Fraud Recklessness Sentencing Banking Offences

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Young

Defendant

Mr Williams

Defendant

Union Bank of Switzerland (subsidiary)

Defendant

Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants made misleading statements to induce investment
  2. 2 Distinction between knowing and reckless misleading statements
  3. 3 Appropriate sentencing for offences under Article 12

Ratio Decidendi

Deliberate misleading statements to induce investment are highly anti-social and warrant substantial custodial sentences; reckless misleading statements by a bank, though less culpable, demand significant financial penalties due to the bank's societal role.

Court Disposition

conviction and sentencing

Orders

  • Dr Young sentenced to 4.5 years imprisonment
  • Mr Williams sentenced to 18 months imprisonment