UK Offence Report

Dealing with funds and economic resources

article 4(1) of The Cyber (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2020 (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”), including the designated person, to deal with funds or economic resources belonging to, or owned, held or controlled by,

a designated person if P knows, or has reasonable cause to suspect, that P is dealing with such funds or economic resources.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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 4(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 Cyber (Sanctions) (Overseas Territories) Order 2020, 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
11 March 2020
In force from
8 April 2020
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 gives effect in all Overseas Territories except Bermuda and Gibraltar (which implement sanctions through their own domestic legislation) to the sanctions regime created by the European Union in Council Decision (CFSP) 2019/797 of 17th May 2019 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States and in Council Regulation (EU) 2019/796 of 17th May 2019 concerning restrictive measures against cyber-attacks threatening the Union or its Member States. The sanctions imposed include an asset-freeze on persons designated by the Council of the European Union as persons who are responsible for cyber-attacks or attempted cyber-attacks, who provide financial, technical or material support for, or are otherwise involved in, cyber-attacks or attempted cyber-attacks, as well as persons associated with such persons. The Order provides for certain exceptions to the sanctions regime, for example to allow for frozen accounts to be credited with interest or other earnings. It also makes provision for the Governor of the relevant Overseas Territory to license certain activities that would otherwise be prohibited under the financial sanctions in line with exemptions and derogations under the sanctions regime. The Order makes it a criminal offence to contravene, or circumvent, the financial sanctions imposed and prescribes the modes of trial and penalties that apply to such offences. The Order also confers powers on authorised officers in relation to the enforcement of the sanctions imposed. An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because there is no, or no significant, impact on business in the United Kingdom.

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