Associations

Question 1

List the section elements and punishment for:
Conspiracy

Answer 1

Conspiracy
S.310 Crimes Act 1961
7 years

-Everyone who
- Conspires with any person
- To commit any offence
(or)
- To do or omit, in any part of the world
- Anything of which the doing or omission of in New Zealand would be an offence

Question 2

What was held in R v Mulcahy?

Answer 2

R v Mulcahy held that:

“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 an unlawful means. So long as such a design rests in intention only it is not indictable but when two agree to carry it (the intended offence) into effect, the very plot in itself is an act”

Question 3

What is a conspiracy?

Answer 3

A conspiracy is:

An agreement between two parties to pursue a conduct, which if carried out would amount to the commission of an offence , or would involve the commission of an offence by one or more of the parties

Question 4

If a person enters into a conspiracy (agrees to pursue a conduct) but withdraws before the conduct commences still guilty of the offence of conspiracy?

Answer 4

A person withdrawing from a conspiracy is still guilty of conspiracy as are are those people who become party to the agreement after it is made unless they withdraw from the agreement before it is actually made between the parties

Question 5

When is the offence of conspiracy complete?

Answer 5

The offence of conspiracy is complete once the agreement is made between two or more people to carry out a course of conduct with the required intent. It does not require any further progression towards its completion by the parties involved in the agreement.

Question 6

What was held in R v Sanders in relation to when a conspiracy ends?

Answer 6

R v Sanders held that: “A conspiracy does not end with the making of the agreement. The conspiratorial agreement continues in operation and in existence until it is ended by the completion of its performance or abandonment in any other manner by which agreements can be discharged”

Question 7

What are two parts of the ‘mens rea’ or intent that are required in a conspiracy?

Answer 7

The required intent for a conspiracy is that there is an:
-An intention by those involved to agree
(and)
-An intention that the relevant course of conduct should be pursued by those involved in the agreement

Question 8

What is the ‘mens rea’ or intent necessary for a conspiracy?

Answer 8

The offenders mental intent must be to commit the full offence. Where this intent does not exist no crime has been committed

Question 9

Define the two types of criminal intent?

Answer 9

An intention to:
-Do a deliberate act
-To get a specific result

Question 10

What was held in R v Collister?

Answer 10

R v Collister held that an offenders intent can be seen in their words actions before during and after the event, the surrounding circumstances and the nature of the act itself

Question 11

What was held in R v White in relation to conspiracy?

Answer 11

R V White held that where you can prove that a suspect conspired with other parties (one or more people) whose identities are not the known suspect can can still be found guilty even if the identity of the other conspirators is never known

Question 12

What does S.310 Crimes Act say about conspiracy’s to commit offences overseas?

Answer 12

S.310 of the Crimes Act states that it is an offence to conspire to commit an offence or to do or omit to do anything in any part of the world that would be an offence in New Zealand. The defence to this however is if they can prove that the act or omission is not an offence in the country in which they agreed to commit it.

Question 13

What are the evidence admissibility rules for conspiracy cases?

Answer 13

1. Anything a conspirator party does towards effecting the common aim can be used in evidence against the other parties involved, in exception to the hearsay rule and as such conspirators should be jointly charged.
2. However this does not include explanations given after the common aim has been carried out (interview), this is evidence against that person alone

Question 14

What should you consider when deciding whether to charge someone with a conspiracy offence or the substantive offence?

Answer 14

-Laying both a substantive and a conspiracy charge is undesirable because:

-The evidence admissible on on the conspiracy charge may have a prejudicial effect in relation to other charges

-The judge may disallow the evidence as it will be too prejudicial, i.e. 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 unnecessarily 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 causing seperate trials

Question 15

What evidence must there be in order for a conspirators evidence to be used against another co-conspirator?

Answer 15

There must be independent evidence of the conspiracy in order for the evidence of one conspirator to be used against his co-accused

Question 16

What should be considered when interviewing witnesses in relation to a conspiracy?

Answer 16

Interviews with witness’ should cover:

-The identity of the people present at the time of the agreement
-Who made the agreement
-What the offence planned was
-Anything that has been done to further the common purpose

Question 17

What should be considered when interviewing suspects in relation to a conspiracy?

Answer 17

Interviews with suspects should cover:

-The existence of an agreement to commit an offence (or)
-The exsistance of an agreement to omit to do something that would amount to an offence
-The intent of those involved
-The identity of all involved
-Whether anything was written, said or done to further the common purpose

Question 18

What is the section and act that defines an ‘Attempt’ and what does it outline?

Answer 18

Section 72 of the Crimes Act 1961 defines what constitutes an attempt as:

S.72 (1)
Everyone who having an intent to commit an offence, does or omits an act for the purpose of accomplishing his object.

S.72(2)
The question of whether or not the act done or omitted with intent to commit the offence is merely preparation for the commission of the offence and is too remote to constitute an attempt is to be a question of law

S.72(3)
An act or omission done with intent commit an offence may constitute an attempt if the act or omission is sufficiently proximate or connected to the offence, whether or not there was any act unequivocally showing the intent to commit the offence

Question 19

What are the elements the Crown are required to prove for an ‘attempt’ offence?

Answer 19

The three key elements required to prove an attempts offence are:

-The identity of the suspects
AND
-Intent: There must be an intention to commit an offence
-Act: That they did, or omitted to do something to achieve their intent
-Proximity: That the act or omission was sufficiently proximate

Question 20

What must be proven in relation to a defendant’s actions for an ‘attempts’ offence?

Answer 20

The crown must prove that the accused did or omitted to do something that was sufficiently proximate to the full offence. Effectively that the accused must have started to commit the full offence and had gone beyond the phase of mere preparation

Question 21

What was held in R v Ring in relation to ‘attempts’

Answer 21

R v Ring held that the intent of the offender may be inferred from the act itself and proved by admissions or confessions

Question 22

What was held in R v Harpur in relation to ‘attempts’

Answer 22

R v Harpur held that while independent acts when viewed in isolation may appear preparatory, when these same acts are viewed collectively they can take on a different context and therefore amount to a criminal attempt

Question 23

How is the question of proximity determined?

Answer 23

Proximity is a question of law which is to be decided upon by a judge based on the facts of the case

Question 24

What is the test for proximity?

Answer 24

-Has the offender done anything more than getting themselves into a position from which they could commit the offence?

-Have they actually began committing the offence and taken steps towards achieving their intent?

E.g driving to construction site with the intention to burgle it v.s starting to remove temporary fence panels in order to gain access to the building site in order to burgle it

Question 25

Can someone be convicted of an 'attempt' offence is the act is legally or physically impossible?

Answer 25

A person cannot be convicted of an offence if the actions and intent were to commit an offence that they believed was illegal but in fact is not e.g attempting to steal a hallucinogenic plant that is not illegal to possess However a person can be convicted of an 'attempts' offence if the action in question is physically impossible but is still illegal as they acted with criminal intent e.g. R v Ring (attempts to steal from someones pocket but nothing was in the pocket)

Question 26

When is an 'attempts' offence completed?

Answer 26

An attempt is completed when the they have completed an act with sufficient proximity to the intended offence with the necessary criminal intent, even if they change their mind and stop before completing the full offence Once they have acted with sufficient proximity there is no defence that they: - Were prevented by some outside agent from doing something that was necessary to complete the full offence (interrupted during) - Failed to complete the full offence because of ineptitude or insufficient means (not enough explosive to blow open safe) - Were prevented by some intervening event that made it physically impossible (property removed before intended theft)

Question 27

What are the functions of a Judge & Jury in relation to 'attempts' offences?

Answer 27

-The Judge must decide whether or not the defendant has left the preparation stage and was trying to complete the full offence -The Jury must decide whether the actions taken by the defendant were close enough to the full offence and that they acted with criminal intent

Question 28

In what circumstances can you not charge someone with an 'attempts' offence?

Answer 28

You cannot charge someone with an 'attempts' offence when: -The criminality of the offence depends on recklessness or negligence (manslaughter -did not intend to cause death) -An attempt to commit that offence is included in the definition of that offence (assault -apply's or attempts to apply force) -The offence is such that the act must be committed in order for the offence to exist (demand with menace -must maker demand and do so with menace)

Question 29

If a defendant was charged with an attempt but the full offence was completed can they be convicted of the full offence?

Answer 29

No, if a person is only charged with an attempt and the full offence is committed they cannot be convicted of the full offence. HOWEVER If the defendant is charged with the full offence, but it is not made out, then they may be convicted of an attempt

Question 30

What is the punishment for 'attempt'

Answer 30

The punishment is half of that of the full offence, with up to 10 years imprisonment for life imprisonment offences

Question 31

List the section and elements for 'parties to' offences

Answer 31

Section 66 Crimes Act 1961 S. 66(1) -Every one is a party to 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

Question 32

What is outlined in S.66(2) CA1961 in relation to 'parties to' offences

Answer 32

Section 66(2) outlines: Where 2 or more persons form a common intention to carry out any unlawful purpose and to assist each other in doing so, each one is a party to any offences committed by any of the other persons in the carrying out of the common intention, IF, it was (the offence) known by the parties to be a probable consequence of the common intention

Question 33

What must the Crown prove in relation to S.66(1) 'parties to ' offences?

Answer 33

The Crown must prove: -The identity of the defendant - An offence has been committed (and) -The elements of S.66(1) have been proven Where there is more than one offence committed the elements must be applied to each offence separately

Question 34

When does someone have to have been involved in an offence to be convicted of a 'parties' offence?

Answer 34

To be considered a party someone must have participated before or during the commission of the offence and before the offence has been completed. If the defendants participation has been after the completion of the offence they are considered an acsessory after the fact

Question 35

What is considered a 'principal party' in 'parties to' offences?

Answer 35

The principal party is someone who satisfies the actus reas and mens rea requirements of the offence, there may be more than one principal offender in relation to the offence committed

Question 36

In what circumstances may there be more than one 'principal' offender?

Answer 36

There are two circumstances under which there may be more than one 'principal' offender: 1. When each offender separately satisfies the elements of the offence committed (two people actively assault a victim) 2. Under S.66(1) each offender may separately satisfy some part of the actus reus of the offence where when their actions combined with the actions of the other person satisfy the complete actus reus requirement and both parties act with the necessary mens rea as well e.g one person prepares a poison and another administers it

Question 37

What was held in R v Renata in regard to principal offenders?

Answer 37

R v Renata held that in the absence of being able to identify a principal offender, it is sufficient to prove that each party must have been either the principal offender or a party in one of the way outlined in S.66(1) CA1961

Question 38

Who is considered a secondary offender and when must they have acted to be considered a secondary offender?

Answer 38

A secondary offender is someone who assists the principal offender either before or during the commission of an offence To be a party to an offence a secondary offender must have acted earlier in time, (or) contemporaneous to the actions of the principal offender, whether they are contemporaneous is dependant on the circumstances of the case. If the actions by the secondary party were part of the original planning then they are in fact a principal party (e.g providing a means of escape) However a person cannot be convicted as a party to an offence that has already been completed, in this case they would be an accessory after the fact (e.g Matt Hunt getaway driver)

Question 39

What are the necessary actions needed to be taken by someone to be considered a 'party to' an offence and in what circumstances?

Answer 39

Secondary parties are those whose assistance, abetment, incitement, counselling or procurement is sufficient under S.66(1) (b), (c) or (d) to make them liable as a party to the offence committed by the principal offender, despite not having committed the offence themselves

Question 40

Define 'Aid" in relation to 'parties to' offences

Answer 40

To aid is to assist in the commission of an offence, either physically or by giving advice or information. It is not necessary that the person providing the aid be at the scene either during the commission of the offence. It is also not necessary that principal offender be aware that they are being assisted by a secondary party , provided that the aid given does in some way assist the principal offender ( R v Larkins)

Question 41

What was held in R v Larkins in relation to secondary parties and providing assistance?

Answer 41

R v Larkins held that whilst it is unnecessary that the principal should be aware that he or she is being assisted, there must be proof of actual assistance. The mere commission of an act with the intention to assist is insufficient

Question 42

What are some examples of assistance offered by secondary parties?

Answer 42

-Keeping a lookout for someone during a burglary -Providing a screw driver to someone breaking into a car -Telling an associate when a neighbour is away so that they can commit a burglary

Question 43

Define 'Abets'

Answer 43

To 'abet' is to instigate, encourage or to urge another person to commit the offence. The 'abetter' is not required to be at the scene during the commission of the offence

Question 44

What is a 'legal duty to act' and give an example

Answer 44

A legal duty to act is when some one is in a position where they have a legal duty to act and a right or power of control over the principal offender e.g A Police sergeant that stands by and watches a subordinate assault an offender. The sergeant would be liable as a secondary party as they have a power of control of the subordinate and a lawful duty to intervene to prevent such incidents

Question 45

Define 'Incites'

Answer 45

To incite is to rouse, stir up, stimulate, animate, urge or spur on another person to commit an offence

Question 46

Define 'Counsels'

Answer 46

To counsel means to intentionally instigate the offence by advising a person on how best to commit an offence (or) planning the commission of an offence for another person It is not necessary that the person counselling knows in detail about the offence intended to be committed, it is sufficient that they know that an offence is intended.

Question 47

Define 'Procures'

Answer 47

Procurement is setting out to see that something happens and taking appropriate steps to ensure that it does Procurement requires that the secondary party deliberately causes the principal party to commit the offence (e.g. a woman hires a hit man to kill her husband and offers money or sex to pay him) Procurement requires a greater connection between the the secondary party and the commission of the offence than aiding, abetting or inciting

Question 48

What was held in R v Betts & Ridley in relation to S.66(2)

Answer 48

R v Betts & Ridley held that where no violence is contemplated and the principal offender uses violence in carrying out the common aim, a secondary offender, having taken no part in the violence, is not liable for the violence used

Question 49

What is a question of fact in relation to S.66(2)

Answer 49

It is a question of fact for a jury to decide whether a defendant knew that their common aim with the other defendant(s) would probably result in another of the defendants committing a particular offence

Question 50

Define an 'Innocent Agent'

Answer 50

Innocent agents are sometimes used by offenders and are people who unaware of the significance of their actions in achieving the principal offenders intentions e.g a delivery driver delivering a letter containing anthrax

Question 51

List the section and elements of 'Accessory After the Fact'

Answer 51

Section 71 Crimes Act 1961 S. 71(1) Any one who: - Knowing any person to have been a party to an offence - Receives, comforts, or assists that person or - Tampers with or actively suppresses any evidence against him - In order to enable him to escape after arrest or avoid arrest or conviction

Question 52

What must the Crown prove in relation to accessory after the fact?

Answer 52

1. That the person who is received, comforted, or assisted by the accessory is a party to an offence (primary or secondary) 2. That at the time of the receiving , comforting or assisting that the person who was doing so (accessory) was aware that the other person was a party to an offence (primary or secondary) 3. That the accessory received, comforted or assisted the other person or actively suppressed any evidence against that person 4. That at the time of the receiving, comforting or assisting that the accessory's purpose was to enable that person to escape after arrest or to avoid arrest or conviction

Question 53

What was held in R v Crooks in relation to being an 'accessory after the fact'?

Answer 53

R v Crooks held that 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 is insufficient

Question 54

When must the knowledge of the offence be present in the mind of the person assisting (accessory)?

Answer 54

The accessory must be aware, AT THE TIME of the comforting, receiving, assisting or suppression of evidence that; -The offence has been committed AND -The person they are assisting is a party to that offence When their knowledge of these matter comes about as a result of offering assistance they are not liable as an accessory

Question 55

What are the intent elements of 'Accessory After the Fact' offences?

Answer 55

The accessory must, receive, comfort, assist or suppress evidence with intent to; Enable the offender to escape after arrest, avoid arrest or avoid conviction

Question 56

List the section and elements of the offence of 'Perjury'

Answer 56

S. 108 Crimes Act 1961 -A witness making any -Assertion to any matter of fact, opinion, belief or knowledge -In any judicial proceeding as part of their evidence under oath -Known by that witness to be false (and) -Being intended to mislead the tribunal

Question 57

When is the offence of perjury complete?

Answer 57

The offence of perjury is complete at the time that the false evidence is given accompanied by the intent to mislead the tribunal There is no defence to perjury if the witness later recants and informs the tribunal of the falsity

Question 58

What are the elements and section for the offence of 'Misleading Justice -Fabricating Evidence'

Answer 58

Misleading Justice - Fabricating Evidence S.113 CA1961 Everyone is liable to 7 years imprisonment who: -With intent to mislead any tribunal holding any judicial proceeding to which S.108 applies -Fabricates evidence -By any means other than perjury

Question 59

`What section governs Opinion evidence by lay witnesses and what does it state?

Answer 59

Section 24 of the Evidence Act 2006 outlines that a witness may state an opinion in their evidence, if, that opinion is necessary to enable the witness to communicate, or the fact finder to understand, what the witness saw, heard or otherwise perceived

Question 60

What is the section that governs evidence in relation to the offence of perjury and what does it state?

Answer 60

S. 112 Crimes Act 1961 states that no one shall be convicted of perjury, or of any other offence under S. 110 or S. 111 of this Act based on the evidence of one witness alone, unless the evidence of that witness is corroborated in some material particular by evidence implicating the defendant

Question 61

What is the section and punishment for Conspiring to Defeat Justice

Answer 61

S. 116 Crimes Act 1961 Everyone is liable to a term not exceeding 7 yrs imprisonment who conspires to, obstruct, prevent, pervert or defeat the course of justice

Question 62

What are some practical examples of attempting to conspire to defeat justice?

Answer 62

-Preventing a witness from testifying -Wilfully going absent as a witness -Threatening or bribing witnesses -Concealing the fact a offence has been committed -Intentionally giving Police false information -Arranging a false alibi -Assisting an offender to leave the country -Threatening or bribing jury members

Question 63

When may a prosecution for the offence of Perjury begin?

Answer 63

A prosecution for perjury may only begin when it is recommended to do so by the Courts or you are directed to do so by the Commissioner of Police

Question 64

List the section and elements of the offence of 'receiving'

Answer 64

S. 246(1) CA 1961 -Everyone commits the offence of receiving who: -Receives any property -Stolen (or) obtained by any other offence -Knowing that the property is stolen or so obtained (OR) -Is reckless as to whether it is stolen or otherwise obtained

Question 65

When is the offence of receiving complete and what section relates?

Answer 65

S. 246(3) CA 1961 The offence of receiving is complete as soon as the offender has either exclusively or jointly with the thief (or) any other person, possession of (or) control over the property or helps in concealing or disposing of the property

Question 66

What must the Crown prove in relation to the offence of receiving?

Answer 66

The Crown must prove: -There must be property which has been stolen or otherwise obtained by a crime -That the suspect has received the property from someone (not themselves) -That the suspect has received the goods knowing (or) being reckless to the fact that the property is stolen or otherwise obtained

Question 67

What was held in R v Cox in relation to possession?

Answer 67

R v Cox held that possession involves two elements, the physical, being actual or potential physical custody or control and the mental, being an awareness by the accused that the substance is in their control and an intention to exercise that possession

Question 68

Cullen v R outlines the four elements of possession in relation to receiving, what are they?

Answer 68

Cullen v R held that the four elements of possession for receiving are: 1. Awareness that the item is where it is 2. Awareness that the item is stolen 3. Actual or potential control over the item 4. An intention to exercise that actual or potential control

Question 69

In what circumstances can a receiver still be in control of property when they are not actually in possession of it and why?

Answer 69

Control over property can still be exercised by a receiver when the property is in the possession of the receivers agent or servant (including innocent agents), as long as there is an intention to control that property on the part of the receiver

Question 70

When is it legally impossible to commit the offence of receiving and what is the relevant case law?

Answer 70

R v Donnelly 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

Question 71

Define 'property'

Answer 71

Property is any real or personal property in which any person or estate has any right to or interest in

Question 72

Define the concepts of 'title' and 'voidable title'

Answer 72

Title is the legal right to the property, a claim of right to possession of that thing Voidable title is when title has been obtained deception and is voidable by the seller

Question 73

Explain how 'title' can be voided

Answer 73

Title can be voided by: -Complaining to the Police -Communicating directly the deceiver -Taking all reasonable steps to bring the deception to the deceivers notice

Question 74

When must a receiver have guilty knowledge of the goods being stolen or otherwise obtained and what is the relevant case law?

Answer 74

R v Kennedy held that the receiver must have guilty knowledge that the thing has been stolen or dishonestly obtained at the time of the receiving

Question 75

What are some practical examples of situation which may be used as evidence of people having guilt knowledge?

Answer 75

-The receiving of goods in an unusual place, time or way -Absence of packaging -Absence of receipt -Purchasing goods at a price significantly under their real value

Question 76

What is the doctrine of recent possession?

Answer 76

The doctrine of recent possession is the presumption that, where the defendant acquired possession willingly, the proof that the defendant is in possession of the stolen goods, in the absence of a reasonable explanation may be evidence enough to justify the belief that the defendant is either the thief themselves or the receiver. In essence the doctrine of recent possession allows for for proof of theft or receiving by way of circumstantial evidence

Question 77

What defines whether possession is defined a 'recent'?

Answer 77

Whether possession is recent is dependant on: -The nature of the property stolen -The surrounding circumstances

Question 78

What was held in R v Lucinsky in relation to receiving stolen types of stolen property?

Answer 78

R v Lucinsky held that the property being received must be the property stolen or otherwise illegally obtained, it cannot be some other item, for which the stolen property has been exchanged

Question 79

What does S.243(1) say in relation to concealing property?

Answer 79

S.243(1) states that to 'conceal' in relation to any property means to conceal or disguise the property and includes without limitation: a) to convert the property from one form to another b) to conceal or disguise the nature, source, location, disposition, or ownership of the property or of any interest in the property

Question 80

Define the term to 'deal with' in relation to Money Laundering offences

Answer 80

S. 243(1) CA1961 defines to 'Deal With' as: To deal with in relation to property means to deal with the property in any manner and by any means, and incvludes without limitation: a) To dispose of the property, whether by sale, purchase, gift or otherwise b) To transfer possession of the property c) To bring the property into New Zealand d) To remove the property from New Zealand

Question 81

Define 'Interest' as per S.243(1) CA1961 in relation to money laundering offences

Answer 81

Interest in relation to to property means: a) A legal or equitable estate or interest in the property (OR) b) A right, power or privilege in connection with the property

Question 82

Define what 'proceeds' from an offence are as per S.243(1) CA1961 in relation to money laundering offences

Answer 82

Proceeds from an offence are any property that is derived or realised, directly or indirectly, by any person from the commission of an offence

Question 83

Define 'Money Laundering'

Answer 83

Money laundering is the process of dealing with the proceeds of criminal activity in such a way, as to make the proceeds appear to have been legitimately acquired

Question 84

What are the elements and relevant section for the offence of Money Laundering?

Answer 84

S.243(2) CA1961 -In respect of any property that is the proceeds of 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 an offence

Question 85

What must the Crown prove in relation to Money Laundering offences?

Answer 85

The Crown must prove: 1. That the offender has dealt with the property (or) assisted with such dealing 2. The source of the property is from the proceeds of an offence punishable by 5 years or more imprison 3. That the offender had knowledge or a belief (at the time of the dealing) that the property proceeded form such an offence (OR) 4. Were reckless as to whether it was the proceeds from such an offence 5. There was an intention to conceal the property

Question 86

What is the purpose of the Criminal Proceeds Recovery Act 2009

Answer 86

The Criminal Proceeds Act 2009 provides a regime for the forfeiture of property that : a) Has been derived directly (or) indirectly from significant criminal activity OR b) Represents the value of a persons unlawfully derived income

Question 87

What is the definition and relevant section for 'Tainted Property'

Answer 87

Tainted Property S.5 Criminal Proceeds Act 2009 a)Tainted property is 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, at least one or more significant criminal activity's

Question 88

What is the definition and relevant section for 'Significant Criminal Activity"

Answer 88

Significant Criminal Activity S.6 Criminal Proceeds Act 2009 -Significant criminal activity is any offence punishable by 5 or more years imprisonment (or) -From which property, proceeds or benefits of a value of $30,000 or more have been acquired directly or indirectly

Question 89

What are some points that should be considered when interviewing suspects in relation to a money laundering offence?

Answer 89

When interviewing someone in relation to a money laundering offence the following points should be covered: -Suspects legitimate income -Suspects illegitimate income -Suspects expenditure -Suspects assets -Suspects liabilities