UK Offence Report

Acquisition of gold from Russia

regulation 46Z12(3) of The Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 14) Regulations 2022

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

3 A person who contravenes a prohibition in paragraph (1) commits an offence, but— a it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(a) to show that the person did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the gold originated in Russia; b it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(b) to show that the person did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the gold was located in Russia.

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 This is the text as originally made; later amendments are not shown here.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
Legal burden on the defendant

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 gives a defence the defendant must prove, on the balance of probabilities. A legal burden of that kind can be read down to a merely evidential one under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 where placing it on the defendant would be disproportionate (R v Lambert [2001] UKHL 37; Sheldrake v DPP [2004] UKHL 43).

Classifier’s reasoning: no word of intention, knowledge, recklessness or negligence in the offence or its provision.

The defence, as drafted

s a prohibition in paragraph (1) commits an offence, but— a it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(a) to show that the person did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the gold originated in Russia; b it is a defence for a person charged with the offence of contravening paragraph (1)(b) to show that the person did not know and had no reasonable cause t

What would breach regulation 46Z12(3)?

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 prohibition in paragraph (1).
  2. Doing the thing the provision prohibits under the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 14) Regulations 2022, 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
Not determined
Maximum fine
Not determined
Maximum prison (summary)
Not determined

no penalty is stated here: this instrument amends another one, and the penalty for the offence is in the instrument being amended.

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
18 July 2022
In force from
21 July 2022
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 Regulations) — the explanatory note published with the instrument, © Crown copyright.

These Regulations are made under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018 (c. 13) to amend the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (S.I. 2019/855) (“the 2019 Regulations”). These Regulations amend Part 5 of the 2019 Regulations, on trade, and insert related Schedules. New restrictions are imposed in relation to trade in— professional and business services (as specified in new regulation 54B); miscellaneous essential goods required for the functioning of the Russian economy (as specified in new Schedule 3E); oil and oil products means (as specified in new Schedule 3F); gold (as specified in new Schedule 3G); coal and coal products (as specified in new Schedule 3H). The goods specified in new Schedules 3E, 3F, 3G and 3H are specified by reference to commodity codes which are set out in the Tariff of the United Kingdom. Provision in also made in relation to energy related goods, supplementing existing provision in Chapter 4 of Part 5. Provision is also made in relation to the giving of technical assistance to certain aircraft situated at UK airports. The remainder of the provisions in these Regulations relate to trade exceptions and enforcement. A full impact assessment of the effect that this instrument will have on the costs of business, the voluntary sector and the public sector has been published alongside these Regulations and is available from legislation.gov.uk or from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, King Charles Street, London SW1A 2AH.

Read the full note and every offence in this instrument

How this became law

Both Houses had to approve this instrument before it could take effect, and did so.

Neither House could have amended it. A statutory instrument is put to each House as a whole thing, to be approved or not; the Houses can reject an instrument or record their regret, but they cannot change a word of it. That is the constitutional position for every offence on this site.

The full procedural history →

What Parliament said

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

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 0.92.

Basis
the provision says a person “commits 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