UK Offence Report

Making funds available for the benefit of a designated person

article 6(1) of The Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 2012 (revoked)

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

1 It is an offence for

a person (“P”) to make funds available (directly or indirectly) to any person for the benefit of

a designated person if P knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that P is making the funds so available.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Objective fault
Burden of proof
No statutory defence — prosecution proves everything

The prosecution must prove that the conduct happened and that it fell below the standard the provision sets. That is an objective test - what a reasonable person in the same position would have done, not what this defendant actually thought.

What a person personally believed or intended is not the question; the standard is what was reasonable.

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

Classifier’s reasoning: objective standard in the offence-creating words: reasonable cause to suspect.

What would breach article 6(1)?

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 Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 2012, 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
Either way — magistrates’ court or Crown Court
Maximum fine
£5,000
Maximum prison (summary)
6 months
Maximum prison (on indictment)
6 months

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
7 November 2012
In force from
5 December 2012
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 consolidates the asset freezing provisions imposed by the United Nations Security Council in relation to Iraq. Asset freezing obligations were originally imposed by the Security Council in relation to Iraq in Security Council resolution 661 (1990). These obligations were significantly amended by Security Council resolution 1483 (2003) to provide for an asset transfer mechanism to the Development Fund for Iraq (“the DFI”) which was an account of the Central Bank of Iraq subject to international oversight by the United Nations. The DFI along with certain obligations preventing the attachment of monies payable to the DFI was terminated by virtue of Security Council resolution 1956 (2010), but the obligation to freeze assets remained in place. This Order also amends the Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2003 to update the definition of “restricted goods”.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

Other offences in the same 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 0.90.

Basis
the provision says “it is an offence”; the provision says an offence is committed “if” something happens
Confidence
0.90 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