BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Parvizi v Barclays Bank Plc [2014] EWHC B2 (QB) (21 May 2014) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2014/B2.html Cite as: [2014] EWHC B2 (QB) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
7 Rolls Buildings Fetter Lane EC4A 1NL |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
IRAJ PARVIZI | Applicant/Claimant | |
- and - | ||
BARCLAYS BANK PLC | Respondent/Defendant |
____________________
8th Floor, 165 Fleet Street, London, EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7421 4036 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
Web: www.merrillcorp.com/mls Email: [email protected]
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
MR N. MEDCROFT (instructed by Addleshaw Goddard LLP) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
"16. What then does the word 'suspecting' mean in its particular context in the 1988 Act? It seems to us that the essential element in the word "suspect" and its affiliates, in this context, is that the defendant must think that there is a possibility, which is more than fanciful, that the relevant facts exist. A vague feeling of unease would not suffice. But the statute does not require the suspicion to be 'clear' or 'firmly grounded and targeted on specific facts', or based upon 'reasonable grounds'. To require the prosecution to satisfy such criteria as to the strength of the suspicion would, in our view, be putting a gloss on the section. We consider therefore that, for the purpose of a conviction under section 93A(1)(a) of the 1988 Act, the prosecution must prove that the defendant's acts of facilitating another person's retention or control of the proceeds of criminal conduct were done by a defendant who thought that there was a possibility, which was more than fanciful, that the other person was or had been engaged in or had benefited from criminal conduct. We consider that, if a judge feels it appropriate to assist the jury with the word 'suspecting', a direction along these lines will be adequate and accurate."