1
Q
CON: When can you withdraw from an agreement?
A
If a person withdraws before the agreement is made, they would not be liable.
A person is still guilty of conspiracy if they are party to the agreement then withdraw afterwards.
2
Q
CON: What is the mental and physical element of a conspiracy?
A
The mens rea (mental element):
- an intention of those involved to agree, and
- an intention that the relevant course of conduct should be pursued by those party to the agreement
The acts reus (physical element):
- is the agreement between two or more people to put their common design into effect. The agreement must be made before the commission of the acts which make up the full offence and the object of the conspiracy
- physical acts, words, or gestures used by the conspirators in making their agreement (whether this is an express or implied agreement)
*mere passive presence or knowledge of an intention does not amount to being a party to the conspiracy
3
Q
CON: Explain what ‘intent’ is
A
There are two specific types of intent.
Deliberate Act:
- and act or omission must be done deliberately
Intent to produce a result:
- aim, object, or purpose
4
Q
CON: What are three examples to prove a persons intent?
A
- the offenders actions and words, before, during, and after the event
- the surrounding circumstances
- the nature of the act itself
5
Q
Can a person conspire on their own?
A
No, There must be another conspirator for the offence to be committed.
(R v White)
6
Q
R v Malcahy
A
A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of 2 or more but in the agreement of 2 or more to do an unlawful act.
7
Q
What happens if a person enters into a conspiracy overseas?
A
Under common law rules, a person who entered into a conspiracy overseas is amendable to the jurisdiction of NZ law, ONLY if they are later physically present in NZ and they act in the continuance of the conspiracy.
NZ Courts have no jurisdiction over a conspirator who enters into the conspiracy abroad and who never comes to NZ.
8
Q
CON: What is the admissibility of hearsay evidence?
A
Anything a conspirator or party to a joint charge says or does to further the common purpose is admissible against the others involved, this being an exception to the hearsay rile and as such conspirators should be jointly charged,
However this does not include explanations made after the common purpose is carried out. Then, the explanation is evidence only against the person making it.
9
Q
CON: What do you need to cover off in a WITNESS statement re conspiracy?
A
- the identity of the people present at the time of the agreement
- with whom the agreement was made
- what offence was planned
- any acts carried out to further the common purpose
10
Q
CON: What do you need to cover off in a SUSPECTS interview re conspiracy?
A
- the existence of an agreement to commit an offence, OR
- the existence of an agreement to omit to do something that wold amount to an offence, and
- the intent of those involved in the agreement
- the identity of all people concerned where possible
- where anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose
11
Q
CON: When charging, why is it undesirable to lay both a substantive charge and a related conspiracy charge?
A
- the evidence admissible only on the conspiracy charge may be a prejudicial effect in relation to other charges
- the judge may disallow the evidence as it will be too prejudicial, ie the jury may assume the defendants guilty knowledge or intent regarding the other charge and not look at the evidence, basing its assumption on the conspiracy charge
- the addition of a conspiracy charge may unneccessarily complicate and prolong a trial
- where the charge of conspiracy is not founded on evidence or is an abuse of process, it may be quashed
- severance may be ordered. This mens that each charging document may be hard at seperate trials
12
Q
ATTEMPT: What are the three elements of an attempt offence?
A
- intent (mens rea) to commit an offence
- act (actus reus) that they did, or omitted to do, something to achieve that end
- proximity - that their act or omission was sufficiently close
13
Q
R v Ring
A
In this case the offenders intent was to steal property by putting his hand into the pocket of the victim. Unbeknown to the offender, the pocket was empty. Despite this he was able to be convicted of attempted theft, because the intent to steal whatever property might have been discovered inside the pocket was present in his mind and demonstrated by his action. The remaining elements were also satisfied.
14
Q
ATTEMPT: Explain what is meant by ‘acts must be sufficiently proximate to the full offence’:
A
The accused must have started to commit the full offence and have gone beyond the phase of mere preparation, this is the ‘all but’ rule.
15
Q
ATTEMPT: What are some examples of acts that may constitute an attempt to commit an offence?
A
- lying in wait searching for or following the contemplated victim
- enticing the victim to go to the scene of the contemplated crime
- reconnoitring the scene of the contemplated crime
- unlawfully entering a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed
- possessing, collecting, or fabricating materials to be employed in the commission of the crime
- soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime
16
Q
ATTEMPT: Can a person still be charged with an attempt when an act is physically or factually impossible?
A
Yes, as they acted with criminal intent.
Suspects may be unable to commit the offence due to interruption, ineptitude, or any other circumstances beyond their control eg. a person failing to force open a door due to being to weak or they were interrupted by attending Police.
17
Q
AATF: What does an “offence” mean?
A
Any act or omission that is punishable on conviction under any enactment, and are demarcated info four categories within S6, Criminal Procedures Act 2011.
18
Q
R v Crooks
A
Knowledge means actual knowledge or belief in the sense of having no real doubt that the person assisted was a party to the relevant offence. Mere suspicion of their involvement in the offence is insufficient.
19
Q
R v Briggs
A
As with a receiving charge under S246(1), knowledge may also be inferred from wilful blindness or a deliberate abstention from making inquiries that would confirm the suspected truth.
20
Q
PERJ: Explain what is held under S113 CA1961 - Fabricating evidence.
A
Everyone is liable to 7 yers who, with intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which section 108 applies, fabricates evidence by any means other than perjury.
21
Q
What are the elements of perjury?
A
- a witness making any
- assertion as to any matter of fact, opinion, belief, or knowledge
- in any judicial proceeding
- forming part of that witness’s evidence on oath
- known by that witness to be false, and
- intended to mislead the tribunal
22
Q
PERJ: What is an opinion?
A
Opinion, in relation to a statement offered in evidence means a statement of opinion that tends to prove or disprove a fact.
23
Q
PERJ: Under the Evidence Act 2006 (S24), what are some examples of opinion evidence that a witness may give?
A
- apparent age
- identity
- speed
- physical and emotional state of people
- condition of articles (worn, used, or new)
- whether a person is under the influence of drink
‘A witness may state an opinion in evidence in a proceeding if that opinion is necessary to enable the witness to communicate, or the fact-finder to understand, what the witness saw, herd, or otherwise perceived’
24
Q
PERJ: When is the offence of perjury complete? And is there a defence?
A
At the time the false evidence is given accompanied by an intention to mislead the tribunal. There is no defence where the witness later recants and informs the tribunal of the falsity of the earlier evidence given.
There must be an intention to mislead the tribunal, where this intention is absent, no offence is committed.
25
PERJ: What are NINE examples of misleading justice under S116 & S117?
- preventing a witness from testifying
- wilfully going absent as a witness
- threatening or bribing witnesses
- concealing the fact an offence has been committed
- intentionally giving Police false information to obstruct their enquiries
- supplying false information to probation officers
- assisting a wanted person to leave the country
- arranging a false alibi
- threatening or bribing jury members
26
PERJ: When may you commence a prosecution for perjury?
Where it is recommended by the Courts or you are directed to do so by the Commissioner of Police. You may however, begin enquiries into an allegation of perjury without reference to the Court or Commissioner of Police.
27
How can complaints of perjury arise?
- an individual may complain that someone has perjured themselves
- a judge may state or direct in a court recommendation that the Police undertake inquiries into the truth of the evidence given by a witness
28
REC: What are the elements of receiving?
- act of receiving
- any property stolen, or obtained by any other imprisonable offence
- knowing that at the time of receiving the property that it had been stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence, or being reckless as to whether or not the property had been stolen or so obtained
29
REC: What are the three elements required to satisfy the act of receiving?
- there must be property which has been stolen or has been obtained by an imprisonable offence
- the defendant must have 'received' that property, which requires that the receiving must be from another (you cannot receive from yourself)
- the defendant must receive that property in the knowledge that it has been stolen or illegally obtained, or being reckless as to that possibility
30
REC: Under S246(3)
The act of receiving any property stolen or obtained by any other imprisonable offence is complete as soon s the offender has, with exclusively or jointly with the the or another person, possession of, or control over, the property or helps in concealing or disposing of the property.
31
R v Cullen
There are four elements of possession for receiving:
- awareness that the item is where it is
- awareness that the item was stolen
- actual or potential control of that item
- an intention to exercise that control over the item
32
REC: What must the prosecutor prove in order to establish a person has exercised control over an item?
The prosecution must prove the receiver arranged for the property to be delivered there, or alternatively, that on discovering the property, he or she intentionally exercised control over it. Intent to possess the property must also be satisfied.
33
R v Donnelly
Where stolen property has been returned to the owner or legal title to the property has been acquired by any person, it is not an offence to subsequently receive it, even though the receiver may know the the property had previously been stolen or dishonestly obtained.
34
REC: Define property
Property includes real and personal property, and any estate or interest in any real and personal property, money, electricity, and any debt, and anything in action, and any other right or interest.
35
REC: What is the concept of title? (define title)
A right or claim to the ownership of property. Title or ownership of a thing is the legal right to possession of that thing.
If property is obtained by deception, the offenders gets possession and title, however there are limitations to that title.
36
REC: What is voidable title?
Title that has been obtained by deception is 'voidable title'. It means that the title can be avoided by the seller (complainant). Although the title is voidable, it is still title.
If an innocent buyer bought the property off the deceiver, they acquire good title. If the title has been voided prior to the innocent buyer purchasing the item, they do not acquire title to the goods.
37
REC: How do you avoid title?
- communicate directly with the deceiver
- taking all reasonable and possible steps to bring it to the deceivers notice, eg. sending them a letter
- advising Police of the circumstances of the deception
38
R v Kennedy
The guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained must exist at the time of receiving.
39
R v Harney
Recklessness means the conscious and deliberate taking of an unjustified risk. In NZ, it involves proof that the consequence complained of could well happened, together with an intention to continue the course of conduct regardless of risk.
40
REC: what are some examples of circumstantial evidence of guilty knowledge?
- possession of recent stolen property
- nature of the property, i.e type, value, quantity
- purchase at a gross undervalue
- secrecy in receiving the property
- receipt of goods at an unusual time, place, or way
- concealment of property to avoid discovery
- removal of identifying marks or features
- steps taken to disguise property, ie removal/altering of serial numbers or painting
- lack of original packaging
- type of person goods are received from
- mode of payment
- absence of receipt were receipt would usually be issued
- false statements as to the source of the goods
- false statement as to the date of acquisition
- nature of explanation given, eg. false or inconsistent or no reasonable explanation
- false denial of knowledge, existence etc.
41
REC: Explain what the doctrine of recent possession means?
The doctoring applies ONLY in case where the defendant is found in possession of the property recently stolen or obtained dishonestly.
In circumstances where a person is found in possession of stolen property reasonable soon after the theft, an inference may be drawn that the person in possession either stole the property or received it from the thief.
42
REC: Where does the doctrine of recent possession have no application?
To the concealing or disposition of property.
43
ML: Define 'offence' under S243 CA1961 (Money Laundering)
Offence: means an offence (or any offence described as a crime) that is punishable under NZ law, including any act, wherever committed, that would be an offence in NZ if committed in NZ.
44
ML: Money Laundering, S243(2) CA1961, defines the actual offence of MONEY LAUNDERING. What is it?
- in respect to any property that is the proceeds an offence,
- engages in a money laundering transaction,
- knowing or believing that all or part of the property is the proceeds of an offence, or being reckless as to whether or not the property is the proceeds of crime
45
CP: Define tainted property
Under S5 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recover) Act 2009
Tainted property means any property that has, wholly or in part, been -
- acquired as a result of significant criminal activity; or
- directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal; activity; and
Includes any property that has been acquired as a result of, or directly or indirectly derived from, more than 1 activity if at least 1 of those activities is a significant criminal activity
46
CP: Define 'qualifying instrument forfeiture offence'
Under S5 of the Criminal Proceeds (Recover) Act 2009
Qualifying instrument forfeiture offence means an offence punishable by 5 years or more; and
- includes an attempt to commit, conspiring to commit, or being an accessory to an offence if the max term of imprisonment for that attempt, conspiracy, or activity is 5 years or more
47
CP: Under S7 Criminal Proceeds (Recover) Act 2009, outlines the meaning of unlawful benefited from significant criminal activity. What is explained?
In this act, unless the context otherwise requires, a person has unlawful benefited from significant criminal activity if the person has knowingly, directly, or indirectly, derived a benefit from significant criminal activity (whether or not that person undertook or was involved in the significant criminal activity)
48
CP: Before an application to restrain an instrument of crime, an assessment process is required. What are the four things to determine?
1. the value of the asset
2. equity of the asset
3. any third party interest in the asset
4. the cost of action in respect of the asset
49
CP: What is required in the affidavit for an application to restrain an instrument of crime?
- Officer in charge details
- Offenders - details, charges, and criminal convictions
- Search Warrant - describe the nature of the offending discovered at or involving the asset concerned. Where the value of the asset is high, you need to demonstrate that the offending was at more of a commercial level
- Admissions made during interview(s)
- Property - describe prop sought to be restrained and its value. Show that the offender owns, has custody, or control over that property
50
ML: When interviewing a suspect about money laundering or where proceeds recovery action is to be considered, what are some questions to be considered?
- suspects legitimate income
- suspects illegitimate income
- expenditure
- assets
- liabilities
- obtaining financial records (banks, financing companies, loan sharks, family trust documents)
- clarification of documentary evidence located, as per above
51
PERJ: What is a witness? RTS.
A witness is a person that has given evidence as part of judicial tribunal and is able to be cross examined. It may also include a person who is about to give evidence.
RTS: Lisa is a witness as she is giving evidence at a JAT and she is subject to cross examination.
52
PERJ: What is an assertion?
It is something declared or stated positively.
53
PERJ: What is a matter of fact? RTS.
Something that has occurred. This includes a past event or fact that has happened.
RTS: Lisa tells the Court she did not seize the items. This is a matter of fact.
54
PERJ: What is a judicial proceeding? RTS.
It is any type of court proceeding. It includes giving evidence by a visual audio link from another country.
RTS: Lisa is participating in a JAT witch is a judicial proceeding.
55
PERJ: How is evidence given?
Evidence can be given in several ways including in person in court or by an alternative way such as with screen, by an audio or visual link, DVD etc or by other way provided for under this act.
56
PERJ: What is an Oath? RTS.
An oath is a declaration before a person who has authority to administer an oath and says whether a things true or right. An oath and an affirmation are deemed to have equal bearing.
Lisa is giving evidence personally in court, She has affirmed her intention to tell the truth.
57
PERJ: What is knowing? RTS.
Knowing means knowing or correctly believing. The belief must be a correct one, where the belief is wrong, someone cannot know.
Lisa knows by saying she never seized the drug items, when in fact she knows she did but she just lost them.
58
PERJ: Explain a persons intention to mislead the tribunal. RTS.
The defendants intention must be to mislead the tribunal. Where that intention does not exist, no offence has been committed. Intent involves two elements, intention to commit the act, and an intention to get a specified result.
Lisa makes an assertion she never seized the drug items which is false, and she knows it is false. Her intention is to mislead the tribunal due to her fearing she will be regarded as a slacker.
59
What is S66(1) CA1961?
Attempts:
S66(1) Every one is a party to and guilty of an offence who -
(a) actually commits the offence; or
(b) does or omits an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit the offence; or
(c) abets any person in the commission of the offence; or
(d) incites, counsels, or procures any person to commit the offence
60
What is S66(2) CA1961?
Attempts:
66(2) Where 2 or more persons form a common intention to prosecute any unlawful purpose, and to assist each other therein, each of them is a party to every offence committed by any one of them in the prosecution of the common purpose if the commission of that offence was known to be a probable consequence of the prosecution of the common purpose.
61
AATF: What knowledge must the person have at the time of assisting another person?
1. that an offence has been committed AND
| 2. the person they are assisting was a party (principal or secondary) to that offence
62
ATTEMPT: Define incites
To rouse up, stir up, stimulate, animate, urge. eg. a sports fan.
63
A man who has an intent to commit a burglary and visits the commercial premise several times to scope the CCTV out, what is he guilty of?
He isn't guilty of anything as he hasn't gone beyond mere preparation to commit the full offence.
64
Explain the liability of a person who agrees to commit an offence with another person but then withdraws from the agreement before the completion of the intended offence.
person withdrawing from the agreement is still guilty of conspiracy as are those people who become party to the agreement after it has been made. However a person can effectively withdraw before the actual agreement is made
65
What was held in the case of R v Mulcahy as it relates to conspiracy?
A conspiracy consists not merely in the intention of two or more, but in the agreement of two or more to do an unlawful act, or to do a lawful act by unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable. When two agree to carry it (the intended offence) into effect, the very plot is an act in itself,
66
When is the offence of conspiracy complete?
The offence is complete on the agreement being made, accompanied by the required intent. It does not require any further progression toward its completion by those involved in the agreement
67
What five points should be covered when interviewing conspiracy suspects?
Interview the suspects concerned to establish:
* the existence of an agreement to commit an offence, or
* the existence of an agreement to omit or do something that would amount to an offence, and
* the intent of those involved in the agreement
* the identity of all people concerned
* whether anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose.
68
What are three groups of offences that do not allow for a prosecution in respect of an attempt?
You are not able to charge someone with an attempt to commit a crime where:
* The criminality depends on recklessness or negligence; ie manslaughter.
* An attempt to commit an offence is included within the definition of that offence, eg assault.
* The crime is such that the act must be completed in order for the offence to exist at all, eg person cannot attempt to demand money with menaces
69
What elements must be proved to successfully prosecute someone for attempting to commit an offence?
In each case of attempt, you must prove the identity of the suspect and that they:
* intended to commit an offence, and
* did, or omitted to do, something to achieve that end.
70
What was held in the case or R v Donnelly in relation to attempts?
In Donnelly it was held that: Where stolen property has been returned to the owner or legal title to any such property has been acquired by any person, it is not an offence to subsequently receive it, even though the receiver may know that the property had previously been stolen or dishonestly obtained .
The court decided that despite Donnelly’s mens rea and actus reus, it was legally impossible for him to receive stolen property as those goods were no longer deemed to be stolen. His conviction was set aside. An attempt to receive such stolen goods is therefore possible in fact, but impossible in law.
71
Once an offender has committed acts that are sufficiently proximate to the full offence, there are three situations that do not amount to a defence to the charge. What are those three situations?
The three ‘defences’ that an offender has no recourse to once they have committed acts that are sufficiently proximate to the full offence are that they:
* Were prevented by some outside agent from doing something that was necessary to complete the offence, eg interruption from police.
* Failed to complete the full offence due to ineptitude, inefficiency or insufficient means, eg insufficient explosive to blow apart a safe.
* Were prevented from committing the crime because an intervening event made it physically impossible, eg removal of property before intended theft.
72
In what situations does a person become liable as a party to an offence under s66(1) of the Crimes Act 1961?
A person is liable as a party to an offence under s66(1) where they:
* Actually commit the offence.
* Do or omit an act for the purpose of aiding any person to commit an offence.
* Abet any person in committing an offence.
* Incite, counsel or procure any person to commit an offence
73
What is the distinction between ‘aiding and abetting’ and ‘inciting, counselling and procuring’?
In general terms, ‘aiding and abetting’ requires the aider or abettor to be present at the scene before or at the time of the offence being committed, whereas ‘inciting, counselling and procuring’ describe the actions taken before the offence is carried out.
74
How might the involvement of parties be established?
The involvement of parties may be established by:
* A reconstruction of the offence committed, this indicating that more than one person was involved, or that the principal offender was in receipt of advice or assistance.
* The principal offender acknowledging or admitting that others were involved in the offence.
* A suspect or witness admitting to providing aid or assistance when interviewed.
* A witness providing you with evidence of another person’s involvement based on their observations.
* Receiving information indicating that others were involved in the offence.
75
What was held in the case of R v Russell?
The defendant was charged with the murder of his wife and two sons. Following an argument between he and his wife, the wife, in the presence of the defendant, allegedly jumped into a swimming pool with both children, drowning them all. The defendant failed to render assistance to his wife or their children. The court held that the defendant was morally bound to take active steps to save his children, but by his deliberate abstention from so doing, and by giving the encouragement and authority of his presence and approval to his wife’s act he became an aider and abettor and thus a secondary offender: R v Russell (1933) VR 59.
76
What intent must be present in the mind of a person at the time of providing assistance to a party to an offence, so as to make that person liable as an accessory after the fact?
For someone to be held liable as an accessory after the fact, the intent required at the time of providing the assistance is that such assistance will:
* enable the offender to escape after arrest, or
* enable that offender to avoid arrest or conviction
77
Briefly define the meaning of each of the following terms referred to in s71(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as they relate to accessories after the fact:
− receives
− comforts
− assists
− tampers with
− actively suppresses
The meaning of each of the following terms referred to in s71(1) of the Crimes Act 1961 as they relate to accessories after the fact are:
* receives: Common law meaning and refers to harbouring an offender or offering them shelter, eg hiding an escapee in a basement.
* comforts: Common law meaning and refers to providing shelter, accommodation, food, clothing or other supplies to an offender.
* assists: Common law meaning and refers to providing transport, acting as a look out, identifying purchaser for stolen property as a receiver, deliberately providing authorities with false information as to an offender’s whereabouts, giving advice, information, material or services to the offender.
* tampers with: Means to alter the evidence against the offender, eg modifying an offender’s telephone records to conceal communications that might implicate them.
* actively suppresses: This encompasses acts of concealing or destroying evidence against an offender, eg washing bloodied clothing repeatedly to remove evidence or destroying it.
78
What is the principal difference between a party to an offence and an accessory after the fact?
The principal difference between a party to an offence and an accessory after the fact is that parties are involved in the offence before or during the commission of the offence, whereas accessories are involved after the principal offence has been committed.
79
Under what circumstances can you charge someone as being an accessory after the fact when they have received goods dishonestly obtained?
The circumstances under which you can charge the receiver of dishonestly obtained goods with being an accessory after the facts are where the receiving of those goods was done with a view to helping the offender and enabling them to evade justice. It is generally accepted that receivers purchase stolen property for their own financial gain, not to assist the principal offender. Where the contrary is proved then an accessory charge is appropriate
80
When may a prosecution for perjury begin?
You may only start a prosecution for perjury (civil or criminal), where it is recommended by the courts or you are directed to do so by the Commissioner of Police. You may, however, begin inquiries into an allegation of perjury without reference to the court or Commissioner of Police
81
What intent must you be able to prove in order to establish a charge of perjury?
The intent to be proved so as to establish a charge of perjury is the offender’s intention to mislead the tribunal holding the judicial proceeding.
82
What are the two main points to be covered when interviewing a suspect in respect of perjury?
The two main points to be covered when interviewing a suspect in respect of perjury are:
* whether the suspect knew their assertion was false, and
* whether they intended to mislead the tribunal governing proceedings
83
List six examples of conspiring or attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice
Examples of conspiring or attempting to obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice as per ss116 and 117 may include:
* preventing a witness from testifying
* wilfully going absent as a witness
* the taking or detainment of witnesses
* concealment of the fact a crime has been committed
* intentionally giving police false information to obstruct their inquiries
* supplying false information to probation officers
* assisting a wanted person to leave the country
* arranging a false alibi
* threatening or bribing jury members
84
Explain how possession of property can be established in a charge of receiving
Possession can be established by showing that the property is:
* in the immediate physical custody of the receiver, or
* at a location, over which the receiver has control (such as their place of business or private residence)
85
What is the doctrine of recent possession?
It is the presumption that the possession of property recently stolen is, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation, evidence to justify a belief and find that the possessor is either the thief or receiver, or has committed some other offence associated with the theft of the property, eg burglary or robbery.
86
What was held in the case of R v Lucinsky as it relates to receiving?
The property received must be the property stolen or illegally obtained (or part thereof), and not some other item for which the illegally obtained property had been exchanged or which are the proceeds: R v Lucinsky (1935) NZLR 575 (CA).
87
When is the act of receiving complete?
The act of receiving is complete once the defendant has:
* either exclusively or jointly with the thief or any other person
* possession or control of the property, or
* has assisted in the concealment or disposition of the property
* if there is guilty knowledge at that point, the offence is complete.
88
What is meant by the term ‘proceeds’ as it relates to s243, Money laundering?
Proceeds: in relation to an offence, means any property that is derived or realised, directly or indirectly, by any person from the commission of the offence.
89
What is the definition of an ‘offence’ in respect of money laundering?
Offence: means an offence (or any offence described as a crime) that is punishable under New Zealand law, including any act, wherever committed, that would be an offence in New Zealand if committed in New Zealand.
90
What is the purpose of the assessment process when preparing an application for a restraining order relating to an instrument of crime?
The assessment process is conducted to determine:
* the value of the asset
* equity in the asset
* any third party interest in the asset
* the cost of action in respect of the asset.
91
What is the definition of ‘tainted property’ in relation to Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act?
Tainted property
(a) means any property that has, wholly or in part, been—
(i) acquired as a result of significant criminal activity; or
(ii) directly or indirectly derived from significant criminal activity; and
(b) includes any property that has been acquired as a result of, or directly or indirectly derived from, more than 1 activity if at least 1 of those activities is a significant criminal activity
92
What are the three phases of the money laundering cycle?
The three phases in the UNODC Money Laundering Cycle are
* placement - enters financial system
* layering - involved in numerous transactions
* integration - integrated back into the economy,
1- Study
flashcards
Decks in class (42)
# Cards
-
Study271
-
Case Law59
-
Socrative428
-
Definitions16
-
Week 1 Liabilities13
-
Week 1 Case Law22
-
Mock Questions63
-
Arson Liabilities10
-
Kidnapping Abduction Liabilities6
-
Sexual Offence Liabilities16
-
Serious Assaults Liabilities5
-
FA Liabilities10
-
Robbery Liabilities16
-
Deception Liabilities10
-
Drug Liabilities12
-
S&S Module93
-
Sexual Offences Module91
-
Violence Offences Module92
-
S&S129
-
Arson200
-
Deception 00875
-
Evidence 00978
-
Homicide 013157
-
Evidence22
-
Evidence Practice 202190
-
Evidence Practice Questions53
-
Evidence updated35
-
Association Practice92
-
Deception Practice 202061
-
Drugs 011 Must Knows59
-
Drugs SA practice25
-
Drugs Practice Questions56
-
Drugs 011139
-
Serious Crime 014 (Pre-update)96
-
Drugs56
-
Violence42
-
Deception61
-
Deception Caselaw 202011
-
Association188
-
Evidence86
-
Serious Crime140
-
Association Liabilities107
