26. Handling and related offences

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Money Laundering ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Proceeds Of Crime ◽  
English Law ◽  
Do So ◽  
Stolen Goods

This chapter deals with handling of stolen goods and related offences. Under s 22 of the Theft Act 1968, a person who dishonestly receives goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realization by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so knowing or believing that they are stolen goods, is guilty of the offence of handling stolen goods. English law treats this offence as an independent crime rather than one of being an ‘accessory after the fact’ to theft. The chapter considers the actus reus and mens rea of handling stolen goods, when goods cease to be stolen, handling by omission, the ‘doctrine’ of recent possession, dishonest retention of a wrongful credit, advertising for the return of stolen goods and money laundering. It concludes with an overview of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.

26. Handling and related offences

2021 ◽  
pp. 1070-1095
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Money Laundering ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
English Law ◽  
Do So ◽  
Stolen Goods

This chapter deals with handling of stolen goods and related offences. Under s 22 of the Theft Act 1968, a person who dishonestly receives goods, or dishonestly undertakes or assists in their retention, removal, disposal or realization by or for the benefit of another person, or if he arranges to do so knowing or believing that they are stolen goods, is guilty of the offence of handling stolen goods. English law treats this offence as an independent crime rather than one of being an ‘accessory after the fact’ to theft. The chapter considers the actus reus and mens rea of handling stolen goods, when goods cease to be stolen, handling by omission, the ‘doctrine’ of recent possession, dishonest retention of a wrongful credit, advertising for the return of stolen goods and money laundering.

5. Crimes of strict liability

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Severity Of Punishment ◽  
Do So

Offences of strict liability are those crimes that do not require mens rea or even negligence as to one or more elements in the actus reus. Where an offence is interpreted to be one of strict liability, the accused will be criminally liable even if he could not have avoided the prescribed harm despite attempting to do so. Where someone is accused of strict liability, it is not necessary for the prosecution to tender evidence of mens rea as to the matter of strict liability. This chapter discusses strict liability and its distinction from ‘absolute’ liability, crimes of strict liability in common law and statutes, strict liability and the presumption of innocence, the presumption of mens rea, the severity of punishment for strict liability, arguments for and against strict liability, the imposition of liability for negligence, and statutory due diligence defences.

5. Crimes of strict liability

2021 ◽  
pp. 146-179
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Strict Liability ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Presumption Of Innocence ◽  
Due Diligence ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Severity Of Punishment ◽  
Do So

Offences of strict liability are those crimes that do not require mens rea or even negligence as to one or more elements in the actus reus. Where an offence is interpreted to be one of strict liability, the accused will be criminally liable even if he could not have avoided the prescribed harm despite attempting to do so. Where someone is accused of strict liability, it is not necessary for the prosecution to tender evidence of mens rea as to the matter of strict liability. This chapter discusses strict liability and its distinction from ‘absolute’ liability, crimes of strict liability in common law and statutes, strict liability and the presumption of innocence, the presumption of mens rea, the severity of punishment for strict liability, arguments for and against strict liability, the imposition of liability for negligence and statutory due diligence defences.

Actus Reus

Criminology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Foster
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
The Third ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
Criminal Intent ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Affirmative Defense ◽  
Do So

Actus reus is an area of substantive criminal law and is an act by an individual that is deemed to be improper by societal laws. It is one of the elements of a crime and works in connection with mens rea or criminal intent. Illegal or immoral thoughts cannot be legally punished, but once those thoughts are put into action, there is a concurrence between the two elements. There are three types of actus reus, which include a voluntary act, possession, and omission. Within actus reus voluntariness is presumed on the part of the actor. If an accused party wishes to claim an action was involuntary, then an excuse defense would be necessary in criminal court. Possession is also a type of actus reus when an individual is in the possession of or has the possession of an item that is known by the individual to be illegal under the law. As an example, if a person is wearing a jacket that contains a bag of marijuana in the pocket and the person knows that the substance is illegal, then even if the marijuana is not the wearer’s marijuana, the action of possession is fulfilled due to the marijuana being an illegal substance. Omission is the third type of criminal act. Omission is satisfied when a person does not act when that person is required under law to do so. A person would be required to act when there is a contractual obligation to act or a duty to act, such as would be the case of a parent and a child. The parent has a duty to act to protect the child from harm. A defense to possession or omission is possible. Defenses include an alibi or an affirmative defense. A justification defense is one type of an affirmative defense where the accused party claims the action was not criminal given the circumstances of the situation such as duress, etc. An excuse defense is the second type of an affirmative defense in which the accused claims they should not be held accountable for the improper conduct for a reason such as age, intoxication, or insanity. Incomplete offenses, known as inchoate crimes, have their own section within criminal law but are treated similarly to completed offenses.

Murder in the Criminal Law of Iran and Islam

2004 ◽  
Vol 68 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-169
Author(s):  
Ebrahim Ghodsi
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Penal Code ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Human Being ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Will ◽  
English Law ◽  
Key Aspects

Wilful murder, the deliberate killing of another human being, is considered a crime in the criminal law of Iran and Islam, and the consequential penalty invoked is retaliation. The offence, as in English law, requires proof of both actus reus (external element) and mens rea (fault element). The statutory offence may be found in Articles 14 and 204–268 of the 1991 version of the Islamic Penal Code and in Articles 612–615 of 1996 Code. In Islam there are many verses and precedents (of the Prophet and the Shiite Imams) condemning the crime of murder as illegal and retaliation as the appropriate punishment for this crime provided the legal elements are established. The requisite elements of the offence have been subjected to varied review in Iran and Islam. The focus of this article is to study the key ingredients in more depth. Retaliation as a punishment has three key aspects: it is personal; it should be equal with the crime; and to be performed according to the will and option of the avengers of blood.

33. Money laundering (additional chapter)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1134-1134
Author(s):  
David Ormerod ◽  
Karl Laird
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Money Laundering ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Serious Crime ◽  
House Of Lords ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Proceeds Of Crime ◽  
Criminal Conduct ◽  
Stolen Goods

This chapter discusses the offences in the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 which criminalize dealing with the proceeds of crime. These are extremely broad offences with many features which could be characterized as being draconian as successive governments have sought to combat serious crime by targeting not just the offenders (who may commit a money laundering offence in relation to their own criminal conduct), but all those who assist in the disposal of criminal proceeds. These offences have generated a huge volume of case law, much of which has reached the House of Lords and the Supreme Court. This chapter analyses how these offences relate to handling stolen goods.

scholarly journals En embuscade sur le sentier de l’argent. Une perspective internationale

Criminologie ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-52
Author(s):  
Michael Levi
Keyword(s):  
Money Laundering ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Organised Crime ◽  
Limited Effect ◽  
Financial Measures ◽  
Proceeds Of Crime ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Investigation Process ◽  
Do So

This article examines the growth of financial measures against 'organised crime' in the form of money-laundering and asset confiscation. After discussing the implications of conflicts over what crimes should be included in money-laundering statutes —e.g. drugs-only or all 'serious' crime —it summarises the findings of a research study conducted by the author into the impact of money-laundering reporting in the UK upon criminal investigation by the police and customs, and into the forfeiture of the proceeds of crime. It concludes that these measures have had a very limited effect and will continue to do so, unless more technological and human resources are put into the investigation process. Furthermore, the tendency of offenders at all but the highest levels to spend their money as they go along places limits on the likely impact of these measures, based as they are on a model of criminal organisation that is more than the reality.

Mens Rea in Manslaughter

1962 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 200-212
Author(s):  
C. C. Turpin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
Student Teacher ◽  
General Principle ◽  
Good Reason ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Actus Reus ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Mental Element ◽  
English Law

That the much agitated question of mens rea in manslaughter should again be essayed may require some justification. Such is readily found in the deplorable circumstance that this major crime remains obscure and controversial in its most important aspect. Decisions may be found to support any of a variety of views about the presence, absence or nature of the mental element in manslaughter; textbooks on criminal law differ widely on the question; and student, teacher, practitioner, and doubtless also sometimes judge, are left in bewilderment by the abundance and variety of dicta, argument and opinion on the subject. This may seem good reason for not adding another view, but the writer is persuaded that, upon the basis of much valuable inquiry carried out in recent years by a number of workers in the field, it is now possible to state in reasonably clear and confident terms what is that element which, together with the actus reus of killing, constitutes the crime of manslaughter in English law. The writer would begin by acknowledging his indebtedness in particular to various writings of Dr. Turner, Dr. Glanville Williams and Professor Hart. They are not to blame for what follows; but whatever illumination this article may shed is the result of his study of their work.Encouragement to write this article was derived from the following passage in Russell on Crime:“It is … incumbent upon writers, especially in matters of general principle, whenever there appears to be a lack of precision in the authorities, to make concrete suggestions for the removal of doubts and difficulties.

Authority

2020 ◽  
pp. 20-71
Author(s):  
Stephen P. Garvey
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Real Estate ◽  
Money Laundering ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Mens Rea ◽  
Real Estate Broker ◽  
State Punishment ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
Democratic State ◽  
Actus Reus

Opening with the case of United States v. Campbell, a case from the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit involving a real estate broker charged with money laundering, this chapter offers two stories. The first, involving a fictional king named Rex, illustrates the extent to which criminal law theorists (and citizens more generally) disagree about what justice requires across a range of rules governing the imposition of state punishment. In light of such disagreement, how is Rex to decide what, as a matter of justice, the criminal law should be? The second story, involving an imaginary island named Anarchia, illustrates how state authority provides an important good—authoritatively resolving reasonable disagreements among free and equal democratic citizens about the requirements of justice—and explains why those subject to a democratic state’s authority are morally bound to conform their conduct to the law resolving those disagreements. It then argues that a democratic state’s authority to resolve disagegreements among its citizens over the demands of justice is nonetheless limited authority. A democratic state has wide authority, but not unlimited authority. The actus reus and mens rea requirements limit the authority of a democratic state to ascribe guilt.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document