The defendants had been charged with four conspiracies, each of which was indicted as a conspiracy to commit offences under the 1994 Act on the one hand and under the 1988 Act on the other. The crown accepted that for a conviction for the laundering of the proceeds of drug trafficking, it was necessary to prove that the money was in fact the proceeds of drug crime.
Held: The wording of each alternative depended upon whether the property was the proceeds of drug trafficking or criminal conduct.
Judges:
Latham LJ
Citations:
[2001] Crim L R 234
Statutes:
Drug Trafficking Act 1994 49(2)(b), Criminal Justice Act 1988 93C(2)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Montila and Others HL 25-Nov-2004
The defendants faced charges under the two Acts. They raised as a preliminary issue whether it is necessary for the Crown to prove that the property being converted was in fact the proceeds, in the case of the 1994 Act, of drug trafficking and, in . .
Cited – Assets Recovery Agency v Olupitan and Another QBD 8-Feb-2007
The claimant was responsible for recovering money under the 2002 Act, and alleged that the first defendant had been engaged in a mortgage fraud.
Held: To succeed in such a claim for recovery the Claimant must prove, ‘on a balance of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Crime
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.219889