AG v Bhojwani [2008] JRC 130 (12 August 2008)

AG v Bhojwani [2008] JRC 130 (12 August 2008)

Jersey customary law does not recognise the generic offence of misconduct in public office. Only specific offences such as péculat, concussion, malversation, and dereliction of duty are established. The purpose element in Article 34(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 is subjective, and the prosecution need not prove the existence of an actual Jersey offence or confiscation order that the defendant sought to avoid. Section 33(4) of the Larceny Act 1916 is not an offence known to Jersey law.

Citation
[2008] JRC 130
Parties
Defendant: Raj Arjandas Bhojwani; Prosecution: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
12 August 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal Preparatory Hearing / Ruling on Predicate Conduct, Purpose, and Particularisation Applications
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Misconduct in Public Office, Proceeds of Crime, Extraterritoriality, Mens Rea, Predicate Offences
Criminal Law Customary Law Money Laundering Misconduct in Public Office Proceeds of Crime Extraterritoriality Mens Rea Predicate 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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Arjandas Bhojwani

Defendant

Attorney General

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal Preparatory Hearing / Ruling on Predicate Conduct, Purpose, and Particularisation Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the generic offence of misconduct in public office is recognised under Jersey customary law
  2. 2 Interpretation of the purpose element in Article 34(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999
  3. 3 Whether receiving under section 33(4) of the Larceny Act 1916 is an offence known to Jersey law

Ratio Decidendi

Jersey customary law does not recognise the generic offence of misconduct in public office. Only specific offences such as péculat, concussion, malversation, and dereliction of duty are established. The purpose element in Article 34(1) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 is subjective, and the prosecution need not prove the existence of an actual Jersey offence or confiscation order that the defendant sought to avoid. Section 33(4) of the Larceny Act 1916 is not an offence known to Jersey law.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The generic offence of misconduct in public office is not recognised under Jersey customary law.
  • The prosecution is not required to prove the existence of an actual Jersey offence or confiscation order for the purpose element.