Freezing of Funds

article 4(9) of The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001

• Revoked, but still prosecutable
• Strict liability
• Either way
• Corporate, financial services, company law, employment, charity, electoral and tax

The provision has been revoked, but a saving provision keeps it prosecutable for conduct before a stated date. A person can still be charged with something it is no longer an offence to do.

What the provision says

9 Any person who contravenes

a direction given under paragraph (1) is guilty of an offence under this Order.

Text as made, from legislation.gov.uk. © Crown copyright, reused under the Open Government Licence v3.0. This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.

Who it binds, and what has to be proved

Binds

a person

Conduct

contravening a requirement of the instrument

Fault element

Strict liability

Burden of proof

No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened. This is a strict liability offence as drafted: the provision uses no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence, so there is no need to show that a person meant to do it, knew about it, or was careless.

Intention, knowledge and carelessness are irrelevant to guilt. They may still matter a great deal to sentence.

The provision states no defence, so the prosecution bears the burden on every element of the offence.

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision; other provisions of the same instrument use a mens rea word while this one does not (the Cundy v Le Cocq contrast).

What would breach article 4(9)?

These are illustrations, not law. They are generated from the provision’s own words to show the shape of the offence. Whether any particular conduct is caught depends on the full text, on any amendment since, and on the facts.

1. On these words an offence is committed where a person contravenes a direction given under paragraph (1).
2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001, whatever the reason for doing it.
3. Where the requirement is a positive duty, letting the time for performing it pass without performing it.

Penalty

Mode of trial

Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court

Maximum fine

Not determined

Standard scale

Level 5

Maximum prison (summary)

6 months

Maximum prison (on indictment)

2 years

the level is stated but no money value is given: this instrument extends outside the United Kingdom, where the standard scale set by s.122(1) of the Sentencing Act 2020 does not run.

Sentencing

Offences of this kind are usually sentenced under the guidelines below. This is a mapping by subject, not a finding about this provision, and the links go to a search of the Sentencing Council’s own site.

• Sentencing organisations: fines and the means of a corporate defendant All courts in England and Wales

  How a fine on a company is arrived at from its turnover. Relevant far beyond the guidelines that state it, because a very large share of the offences in this corpus can only be committed by an organisation.

• Fraud, bribery and money laundering offences: definitive guideline Magistrates' courts and the Crown Court in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2014

  Covers fraud, false accounting, bribery and money laundering, including offences committed by organisations.

• Imposition of community and custodial sentences: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales

  When a community order or custody is justified at all, and the presumption against short custodial sentences.

• Reduction in sentence for a guilty plea: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 June 2017

  The sliding scale of credit for pleading guilty, from one third at the first stage of proceedings downwards.

• General guideline: overarching principles All courts in England and Wales · in force from 1 October 2019

  The guideline a court uses when there is no offence-specific guideline, which is the position for the overwhelming majority of offences created by statutory instrument. It sets out how culpability and harm are assessed from first principles.

• Totality: definitive guideline All courts in England and Wales

  How to sentence more than one offence at once so that the total is just and proportionate - frequently in point here, because regulatory prosecutions commonly charge several breaches of the same instrument.

Prosecution figures

No published per-offence figure was found for this provision, and it could not be matched to a Ministry of Justice offence code. Offences created by statutory instrument very largely do not have one. Absence of a figure is not evidence that the offence is unused.

Status and lifecycle

Current status

Revoked, but still prosecutable

Revoked by

The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Powers of Arrest) (Consequential Amendments) Order 2005

Revoked on

1 January 2006

Still prosecutable for conduct before

12 October 2006

Made

9 October 2001

In force from

10 October 2001

Extent

E+W+S+NI

expressed as the coming into force of the revoking instrument (2006-10-12)

How this was established: revoked, but a saving provision keeps the offence prosecutable for conduct before the stated date.

What the instrument is for

(This note is not part of the Order) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

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.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

What Parliament said

Mentions of this instrument in Hansard. Parliamentary material is reused under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0.

• Terrorism Bill Lords · 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…

• Abu Hamza Commons · 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…

• Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill Commons · 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…

• Terrorist Asset-Freezing (Temporary Provisions) Bill Commons · 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…

Other offences in the same instrument

• Making Funds Availablearticle 3
• Freezing of Fundsarticle 4(10)
• Facilitation of activities prohibited under articles 3 and 4(9)article 5
• Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury under this Order…article 6
• Any person who, for the purposes of obtaining a licence under article 3 or 4, knowingly or recklessly makes…article 6(1)
• Any person who has done any act under the authority of a licence granted by the Treasury under this Order…article 6(2)
• A relevant institution is guilty of an offence under this Order if— a it knows or suspects that a person who…article 7(1)
• Obtaining of informationarticle 8(6)
• Disclosure of informationarticle 9(2)

How this was identified as an offence

Everything above rests on the judgement that this provision creates a criminal offence, rather than mentioning one. That judgement is made by rule, from the words of the provision, and this is the rule that made it — with a confidence of 0.92.

Basis

the provision says a person is “guilty of an offence”

Confidence

0.92 of 1.00

A provision that states a penalty for an offence created elsewhere can read very like one that creates an offence, and the rules can mistake the one for the other. If the text quoted above sets a penalty for something made an offence by another provision, treat the classification on this page with that in mind, and read the instrument.

Check the source

• This provision on legislation.gov.uk The authoritative text. Check it before relying on anything here.
• The Terrorism (United Nations Measures) Order 2001 Every offence this instrument creates, and its explanatory note
• Corporate, financial services, company law, employment, charity, electoral and taxOther offences on the same subject
• Offences created in 2001