UK Offence Report

Information relating to funds etc

paragraph 2(4) of SCHEDULE 5 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

4 It is an offence for

a relevant institution to fail to comply with

a requirement of sub-paragraph (1), (2) or (3).

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 institution
Conduct
failing to comply with a notice or direction
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 institution 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 paragraph 2(4) of SCHEDULE 5?

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 it is an offence to fail to comply with a requirement of sub-paragraph (1), (2) or (3).
  2. Being served with a notice under the Iraq (United Nations Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) (Amendment) Order 2012 and doing nothing by the date it specifies.
  3. Doing part of what the notice requires, where it required all of it.
  4. Disagreeing with the notice and ignoring it, rather than using whatever appeal the instrument provides.

Penalty

Mode of trial
Not determined
Maximum fine
Unlimited
Maximum prison (summary)
2 years

'to a fine' with no stated maximum.

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