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

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

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.

Citation
[2005] JRC 143
Parties
Defendant: Mr Bell; Defendant: Company 1; Defendant: Company 2; Prosecution: Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
13 October 2005
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Submission of No Case to Answer at Close of Prosecution Case
Outcome
application for no case to answer dismissed
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, Failure to Maintain Procedures, Due Diligence
Criminal Law Financial Regulation Money Laundering Failure to Maintain Procedures Due Diligence

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Bell

Defendant

Company 1

Defendant

Company 2

Defendant

Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a single failure to maintain procedures constitutes an offence under Article 37(4) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law, 1999
  2. 2 Whether evidence of systemic failure is required for conviction
  3. 3 Whether due diligence and reasonable steps provide a defence

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.

Court Disposition

application for no case to answer dismissed

Orders

  • Defendants must proceed to present their defence.