AG v Yuksel 23-Oct-2019 [2019] JRC 208 (23 October 2019)

AG v Yuksel 23-Oct-2019 [2019] JRC 208 (23 October 2019)

There was no evidence that the monies paid to the Defendant's companies were entrusted for a specific purpose beyond ordinary business consideration for goods. Absent evidence of entrustment, a key element of fraudulent conversion was not established. Therefore, the Defendant had no case to answer.

Citation
[2019] JRC 208
Parties
Defendant: The Defendant; Prosecution: The Crown
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
23 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer at the Close of the Prosecution's Case
Outcome
Submission of no case to answer allowed; Defendant acquitted on all counts.
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Conversion, Entrustment, Elements of Offence, No Case to Answer

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Defendant

Defendant

The Crown

Prosecution

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer at the Close of the Prosecution's Case

  1. 1 Whether monies received by the Defendant's companies constituted property 'entrusted' for the purposes of fraudulent conversion
  2. 2 Whether the prosecution established all elements of the offence of fraudulent conversion

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that the monies paid to the Defendant's companies were entrusted for a specific purpose beyond ordinary business consideration for goods. Absent evidence of entrustment, a key element of fraudulent conversion was not established. Therefore, the Defendant had no case to answer.

Court Disposition

Submission of no case to answer allowed; Defendant acquitted on all counts.

Orders

  • Directed jury to return verdicts of not guilty on all counts.