AG v Bhojwani [2008] JRC 172A (01 October 2008)

AG v Bhojwani [2008] JRC 172A (01 October 2008)

The process of transposition under Article 34(1)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 requires the court to focus on the essential elements of the alleged conduct, disregarding local legality or circumstances, and to apply the elements of Jersey offences to the transposed conduct. For the purpose element, it is sufficient if one of the defendant's purposes was to avoid prosecution or confiscation. Evidence of the attempted transfer of funds in 2002 is admissible as it relates to the same proceeds and is relevant to the defendant's knowledge and purpose.

Citation
[2008] JRC 172A
Parties
Defendant: Raj Arjandas Bhojwani
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
01 October 2008
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Preparatory Hearing Before Trial
Outcome
Defence submissions on transposition and purpose rejected; prosecution's approach upheld; evidence of attempted transfer in 2002 ruled admissible.
Legal Topics
Proceeds of Crime, Money Laundering, Transposition of Criminal Conduct, Admissibility of Evidence
Criminal Law Proceeds of Crime Money Laundering Transposition of Criminal Conduct Admissibility of Evidence

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

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Preparatory Hearing Before Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What is the correct process for transposing foreign criminal conduct to Jersey under Article 34(1)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999?
  2. 2 What is the required purpose element for the offence under Article 34(1)(b)?
  3. 3 Is evidence of attempted movement of funds in 2002 admissible?

Ratio Decidendi

The process of transposition under Article 34(1)(b) of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 1999 requires the court to focus on the essential elements of the alleged conduct, disregarding local legality or circumstances, and to apply the elements of Jersey offences to the transposed conduct. For the purpose element, it is sufficient if one of the defendant's purposes was to avoid prosecution or confiscation. Evidence of the attempted transfer of funds in 2002 is admissible as it relates to the same proceeds and is relevant to the defendant's knowledge and purpose.

Court Disposition

Defence submissions on transposition and purpose rejected; prosecution's approach upheld; evidence of attempted transfer in 2002 ruled admissible.

Orders

  • Jurats to be directed as set out regarding the process of transposition and the purpose element.
  • Evidence of attempted transfer of funds to Hong Kong in 2002 is admissible.