1998/49 - AG v Young & Williams [1998] UR 49 (10 March 1998)

1998/49 - AG v Young & Williams [1998] UR 49 (10 March 1998)

On the ordinary meaning of Article 12(c), both the Troy and Young arrangements are arrangements with respect to property other than securities, namely foreign currency, and their purpose was to enable participants to receive profits from acquisition, holding, management, or disposal of such property. The reasoning in Hughes v Trapnell does not apply due to differences in statutory language.

Citation
[1998] UR 49
Parties
Prosecution: The Crown; Defendant: Troy; Defendant: Mayo
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
10 March 1998
Procedural Posture
Criminal / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer
Outcome
Submissions of no case to answer overruled; case to proceed.
Legal Topics
Fraud, Investment Schemes, Interpretation of Statutory Provisions

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Prosecution

Troy

Defendant

Mayo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Criminal / Ruling on Submission of No Case to Answer

  1. 1 Whether the arrangements in question fall within Article 12(c) of the Depositors and Investors (Prevention of Fraud) (Jersey) Law, 1967
  2. 2 Whether the interpretation of similar English legislation (Hughes v Trapnell) applies to the Jersey provision

Ratio Decidendi

On the ordinary meaning of Article 12(c), both the Troy and Young arrangements are arrangements with respect to property other than securities, namely foreign currency, and their purpose was to enable participants to receive profits from acquisition, holding, management, or disposal of such property. The reasoning in Hughes v Trapnell does not apply due to differences in statutory language.

Court Disposition

Submissions of no case to answer overruled; case to proceed.