Regina v Kassim: HL 19 Jul 1991

The trial judge had held that a telex message requesting payment of andpound;960,000 had been ‘executed’ because it had been put into effect.
Held: A valuable security was not executed when the drawer’s bank acted upon the cheque, or request for payment. There was required to be an act with respect to the face of the document, either a signature, or completing performance of the formalities making up its validity. The wider meaning of ‘execution’ in the section was disapproved; it meant more than just ‘give effect to’.


Lord Ackner


[1992] 1 AC 9, [1991] 3 WLR 254, [1991] 3 All ER 713, Times 19-Jul-1991


Theft Act 1968 20(2)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedDirector of Public Prosecutions v Gomez HL 3-Dec-1992
The defendant worked as a shop assistant. He had persuaded the manager to accept in payment for goods, two cheques which he knew to be stolen. The CA had decided that since the ownership of the goods was transferred on the sale, no appropriation of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 30 April 2022; Ref: scu.214205