UK Offence Report

Such relevant criminal conduct is conduct which would constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment for a…

article 2(2) of The Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Money Laundering: Exceptions to Overseas Conduct Defence) Order 2006

This offence was read from the text as made, and no revised version was available, so a later revocation could not be ruled out. Check the current text at legislation.gov.uk.

What the provision says

2 Such relevant criminal conduct is conduct which would constitute an offence punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term in excess of 12 months in any part of the United Kingdom if it occurred there other than— a an offence under the Gaming Act 1968; b an offence under the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976, or c an offence under section 23 or 25 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
dealing with funds or making them available in breach of sanctions
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.

What would breach article 2(2)?

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. Moving, converting or paying away funds that belong to a designated person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Money Laundering: Exceptions to Overseas Conduct Defence) Order 2006, without a licence from the Treasury.
  2. Making funds or economic resources available to a designated person - which includes paying a third party who will pass on the benefit.
  3. Dealing with an asset in ignorance of the designation is still caught where the provision imposes no knowledge requirement; check the fault element stated below before assuming otherwise.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated in this instrument; it may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence.

No penalty was determined from this instrument. It may be in the enabling Act, or in a general penalties provision this pass did not connect to the offence. Absence of a figure here is not evidence that the offence carries no penalty.

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.

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
Status not determined
Made
5 April 2006
In force from
15 May 2006
Extent
Not stated

How this was established: read from the text as made; no revised version available, so later revocation could not be ruled out.

What the instrument is for

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

This Order sets out exceptions to the defences in sections 327(2A), 328(3) and 329(2A) of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (“the 2002 Act”), as inserted by section 102 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Sections 327(1), 328(1) and 329(1) of that Act create offences relating to “criminal property”. That expression is defined by section 340(3) by reference to benefit from “criminal conduct”. The definition of “criminal conduct” includes conduct that would constitute an offence in any part of the United Kingdom if it occurred there (see section 340(2)). Sections 327(2A), 328(3) and 329(2A) create defences in respect of the offences in sections 327(1), 328(1) and 329(1) (respectively) if the person who would otherwise commit such an offence knows, or believes on reasonable grounds, that the “relevant criminal conduct” occurred in a particular country or territory outside the United Kingdom and was not, at the time it occurred, unlawful under the criminal law then applying in that country or territory. “Relevant criminal conduct” is defined in sections 327(2B), 328(4) and 329(2B) (respectively) as the criminal conduct by reference to which the property concerned is criminal property. By virtue of sections 327(2A)(b)(ii), 328(3)(b)(ii) and 329(2A)(b)(ii), this defence does not apply in respect of relevant criminal conduct of a description prescribed in an order. Article 2(2) of this Order prescribes conduct which would be an offence punishable by imprisonment for a maximum term in excess of 12 months in any part of the United Kingdom (subject to the exceptions set out in article 2(2)).

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

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 0.75.

Basis
the provision says the conduct is “punishable”; the provision says the conduct “constitutes an offence”
Confidence
0.75 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