The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001

UK Statutory Instrument 2001 No. 3365 — creates 10 criminal offences.

Made

9 October 2001

In force from

10 October 2001

Extent

Not stated

Subject

Corporate, financial services, company law, employment, charity, electoral and tax

Made under

Her by section 1 of the United Nations Act 1946

Explanatory note

(This note is not part of the Order) — published with the instrument by the department that made it. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0.

This Order, made under the United Nations Act 1946, restricts the making available of funds and financial services to terrorists, and provides powers to freeze accounts of suspected terrorists, pursuant to a decision of the Security Council of the United Nations in its resolution 1373 of 28th September 2001.

Offences created by this instrument

• Making Funds Available article 3 · Revoked, but still prosecutable · Strict liability
• Freezing of Funds article 4(10) · Revoked, but still prosecutable · Strict liability
• Freezing of Funds article 4(9) · Revoked, but still prosecutable · Strict liability
• Facilitation of activities prohibited under articles 3 and 4(9) article 5 · Revoked, but still prosecutable · Requires proof of a state of mind
• Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury under this Order and who… article 6 · Revoked, but still prosecutable · Mixed — some elements strict, some not
• Any person who, for the purposes of obtaining a licence under article 3 or 4, knowingly or recklessly makes any… article 6(1) · Revoked, but still prosecutable · Requires proof of a state of mind
• Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury under this Order and who… article 6(2) · Revoked, but still prosecutable · Strict liability
• A relevant institution is guilty of an offence under this Order if— a it knows or suspects that a person who is, or… article 7(1) · Revoked, but still prosecutable · Mixed — some elements strict, some not
• Obtaining of information article 8(6) · Revoked, but still prosecutable · Requires proof of a state of mind
• Disclosure of information article 9(2) · Revoked, but still prosecutable · Strict liability

What Parliament said about it

Contributions, debates and written statements mentioning this instrument by name. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

• Terrorism Bill Lords · Lords Chamber · 20 December 2005 · Baroness Scotland of Asthal

  I thank the noble Lord, but I hope that he will appreciate that, if someone has acquired certain assets, we cannot deprive them of those assets simply because they happen to have a nationality with which we have concerns. That, frankly, would be intolerable. I remind noble Lords that under Section 1(4)(c) restrictions can be imposed in respect of business. That is under the control order. The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 gives effect to the UN resolution of 28 September and provides the Treasury with the power to direct that funds are not made available to any person…

• Abu Hamza Commons · Westminster Hall · 31 January 2007 · Ed Balls

  No, I shall set out the facts first and then I will take an intervention. It will be worthwhile if I recap the facts to prevent further confusion. Abu Hamza already owned a property in Adie road when his assets were frozen. In June 2003, it was transferred for nil value to his son. The police considered whether the transfer constituted a criminal offence under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 or the Al-Qaeda and Taliban (United Nations Measures) Order 2002. On reviewing the evidence, they concluded that no offence was committed, as the property was transferred for no…

• Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill Commons · Commons Chamber · 8 February 2010 · Mr. Hoban

  My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point, and it was because of the lack of parliamentary scrutiny that the Supreme Court reached the conclusion that it did on the orders. Let me continue to quote from paragraph 61. It goes on to say that “fundamental rights cannot be overridden by general or ambiguous words. The absence of any indication that Parliament had the imposition of restrictions on the freedom of individuals in mind when the provisions of the 1946 Act were being debated makes it impossible to say that it squarely confronted those effects and was willing to accept…

• Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill Commons · Commons Chamber · 8 February 2010 · Mr. David Gauke (South-West Hertfordshire) (Con)

  It is a pleasure to wind up this Second Reading debate on a matter of great importance, which, as we have heard during this evening’s debate, excites great interest and passion. It is vital for Parliament to address issues of protecting the liberty of the individual and national security. A number of contributors to the debate have highlighted the nature of the legislation and of the orders passed under the United Nations Act 1946. The Supreme Court described the legislation as “draconian”, “drastic”, “oppressive”, “burdensome” and “paralysing”, and a number of right hon. and hon. Members…

How Parliament handled it

Parliament's Statutory Instruments service records procedure from May 2017 onwards, and this instrument predates it. That is a limit of the source, not a statement that nothing happened.

Check the source

• This instrument on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text, including amendments made since
• Other instruments from 2001