{"title":"英国最高法院案件注释:2002年《刑事财产法》中“刑事财产”的含义","authors":"A. Khan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2602485","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger PSC and Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson JJSC) heard the case of R v GH (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 24 (22 April 2015) on appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lloyd Jones LJ, Irwin and Green JJ) reported at [2013] EWCA Crim 2237. Unanimously allowing the appeal of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), giving the only judgment Lord Toulson held at para 47 that the “character of the money did change on being paid into the respondent’s accounts.” This case involved fraud. It had been perpetrated through the Internet via four “ghost” websites falsely pretending to offer cut-price motor insurance. To execute his plans, B used associates who opened bank accounts for transmitting the proceeds generated by the scam and H was an associate of this nature. The Supreme Court held that section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) does not require property to constitute criminal property before an arrangement came into operation because such a construction is likely have serious potential consequences in relation to banks and other financial institutions.","PeriodicalId":376821,"journal":{"name":"White Collar Crime eJournal","volume":"282 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"UK Supreme Court Case Note: The Meaning of 'Criminal Property' in POCA 2002\",\"authors\":\"A. Khan\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2602485\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger PSC and Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson JJSC) heard the case of R v GH (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 24 (22 April 2015) on appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lloyd Jones LJ, Irwin and Green JJ) reported at [2013] EWCA Crim 2237. Unanimously allowing the appeal of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), giving the only judgment Lord Toulson held at para 47 that the “character of the money did change on being paid into the respondent’s accounts.” This case involved fraud. It had been perpetrated through the Internet via four “ghost” websites falsely pretending to offer cut-price motor insurance. To execute his plans, B used associates who opened bank accounts for transmitting the proceeds generated by the scam and H was an associate of this nature. The Supreme Court held that section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) does not require property to constitute criminal property before an arrangement came into operation because such a construction is likely have serious potential consequences in relation to banks and other financial institutions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":376821,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"White Collar Crime eJournal\",\"volume\":\"282 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"White Collar Crime eJournal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2602485\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"White Collar Crime eJournal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2602485","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
最高法院(Neuberger勋爵PSC和Kerr勋爵、Reed勋爵、Hughes勋爵和Toulson勋爵JJSC)就上诉法院(Lloyd Jones LJ、Irwin和Green JJ)在[2013]EWCA Crim 2237号报道的判决提出上诉,于2015年4月22日审理了R诉GH(被告)一案。一致同意公诉署署长(DPP)的上诉,给出了Toulson勋爵在第47段中唯一的判决,即“这笔钱在进入被告账户后确实发生了变化”。这个案子涉及欺诈。它是通过互联网通过四个“幽灵”网站进行的,这些网站虚假地假装提供降价汽车保险。B某为了执行诈骗计划,利用在银行开设账户以转移诈骗所得款项的同伙,而H某是这种性质的同伙。最高法院认为,《2002年犯罪收益法》(POCA)第328条没有要求财产在安排生效之前构成犯罪财产,因为这种建设可能对银行和其他金融机构产生严重的潜在后果。
UK Supreme Court Case Note: The Meaning of 'Criminal Property' in POCA 2002
The Supreme Court (Lord Neuberger PSC and Lord Kerr, Lord Reed, Lord Hughes and Lord Toulson JJSC) heard the case of R v GH (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 24 (22 April 2015) on appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal (Lloyd Jones LJ, Irwin and Green JJ) reported at [2013] EWCA Crim 2237. Unanimously allowing the appeal of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), giving the only judgment Lord Toulson held at para 47 that the “character of the money did change on being paid into the respondent’s accounts.” This case involved fraud. It had been perpetrated through the Internet via four “ghost” websites falsely pretending to offer cut-price motor insurance. To execute his plans, B used associates who opened bank accounts for transmitting the proceeds generated by the scam and H was an associate of this nature. The Supreme Court held that section 328 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) does not require property to constitute criminal property before an arrangement came into operation because such a construction is likely have serious potential consequences in relation to banks and other financial institutions.