AG -v- Michel and Gallichan 2-June-2006 [2006] JRC 082 (02 June 2006)

AG -v- Michel and Gallichan 2-June-2006 [2006] JRC 082 (02 June 2006)

Count 1 represents a single arrangement for money laundering and is not duplicitous or lacking in sufficient particularity; there is no requirement to specify the underlying criminal or criminality in the count. For Count 9, the law does not require specification of the particular criminal conduct, only that the funds are proceeds of crime. The prosecution's submissions are accepted and the defence application is refused.

Citation
[2006] JRC 082
Parties
Defendant: Peter Michel; Prosecution: Crown/Prosecution
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
02 June 2006
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Pre Trial Application to Quash Counts in Indictment
Outcome
defence application refused
Legal Topics
Money Laundering, Proceeds of Crime, Indictment Rules, Particularity of Charges, Duplicity in Indictments
Criminal Law Money Laundering Proceeds of Crime Indictment Rules Particularity of Charges Duplicity in Indictments

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Michel

Defendant

Crown/Prosecution

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Pre Trial Application to Quash Counts in Indictment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Count 1 of the indictment is bad for duplicity or lack of particularity under the Indictment Rules 1972 and Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999
  2. 2 Whether Count 9 is fundamentally flawed for lack of specification of underlying criminal conduct

Ratio Decidendi

Count 1 represents a single arrangement for money laundering and is not duplicitous or lacking in sufficient particularity; there is no requirement to specify the underlying criminal or criminality in the count. For Count 9, the law does not require specification of the particular criminal conduct, only that the funds are proceeds of crime. The prosecution's submissions are accepted and the defence application is refused.

Court Disposition

defence application refused

Orders

  • Counts 1 and 9 of the indictment are not quashed; prosecution may proceed on these counts