Financial Crimes in UK Law

Leading Cases
  • R v Kefford (Mark James)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 05 Mar 2002

    Nothing that we say in this judgment is intended to deter courts from sending to prison for the appropriate period those who commit offences involving violence or intimidation or other grave crimes. Offences of this nature, particularly if they are committed against vulnerable members of the community undermine the public's sense of safety and the courts must play their part in protecting the public from these categories of offences.

  • Patel v Mirza
    • Supreme Court
    • 20 Jul 2016

    In assessing whether the public interest would be harmed in that way, it is necessary a) to consider the underlying purpose of the prohibition which has been transgressed and whether that purpose will be enhanced by denial of the claim, b) to consider any other relevant public policy on which the denial of the claim may have an impact and c) to consider whether denial of the claim would be a proportionate response to the illegality, bearing in mind that punishment is a matter for the criminal courts.

  • R v Nield
    • Court of Appeal
    • 29 Mar 2007

    The discretion which is imported by section 6(6) giving rise to the power to make a just order is very strictly limited.

  • R v Clarke (Linda)
    • Court of Appeal
    • 20 May 1982

    In general the type of case that we have in mind is where the gravity of the offence is such that at least six months' imprisonment is merited, but when there are mitigating circumstances which point towards a measure of leniency not sufficient to warrant total suspension. In general the type of case that we have in mind is where the gravity of the offence is such that at least six months' imprisonment is merited, but when there are mitigating circumstances which point towards a measure of leniency not sufficient to warrant total suspension.

  • R (Uberoi and Another) v City of Westminster Magistrates' Court
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 02 Dic 2008

    In my judgment the structure and content of the 2000 Act amply demonstrate that it must have been the Parliamentary intention that the FSA would be able to institute proceedings under Part V of the 1993 Act without consent from outside. In the light of section 61(2) of the 1993 Act, and not overlooking paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the 1987 Act and the absence of such provision in the 2000 Act, section 402(1) is not tightly drawn.

  • Chandrakant Patel v Salman Mirza
    • Chancery Division
    • 05 Jul 2013

    I interject by way of brief technical excursus that a spread bet on listed shares is on analysis a contract for differences, based on movements in the quoted share price over a specified period. In the case of IG Index the client was required, as Mr Mirza told me, to deposit 15–20% of the initial share price and maintain a deposit to at least this level as the price moved. The level of the deposit meant that substantial gearing, of at least 5 times, could be achieved.

  • R v Mallett
    • Court of Appeal
    • 17 Abr 1978

    What the Crown has to show is that the accused person dishonestly, with a view to gain for himself or another or with intent to cause loss to another, in furnishing information for any purpose produces or makes use of any account or any record or any document which is made or required for any accounting purpose and which, to his knowledge, is or may be misleading or false in a material particular.

See all results
Legislation
See all results
Books & Journal Articles
See all results
Law Firm Commentaries
See all results