Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2004] All ER (D) 111 (Aug)
Neutral Citation: [2004] EWHC 2020 (Admin)
Court: Divisional Court

Henriques and Stanley Burnton JJ

Representation Mark Summers (instructed by Jefferies) for the applicant.
  Clair Dobbin (instructed by the Crown Prosecution Service) for the government.
Judgment Dates: 20 August 2004


Criminal law - Obtaining money transfer by deception - Elements of offence - Requirement for credit to be unconditional - No requirement to demonstrate specific debit - s 15A.

The Case

A bank account was not credited for the purposes of s15A of the while the bank with which the account was kept maintained a reservation, precluding the account holder from dealing with the funds in question. 'Credited' in the present context meant credited unconditionally. Moreover, it was not essential to identify for the purposes of s15A what account had been debited as the concomitant to the credit, or whether the account that had been debited was overdrawn or in credit, provided that there was a debiting of an account and the debit was causally connected with the credit. Finally, the court commented that the unnecessary technicality of the English law of theft and fraud, particularly in relation to funds in bank accounts and bank transfers, and the fact that that it was scarcely surprising that information provided by foreign courts and prosecution authorities, which established an offence or offences under their own law, did not address specifically the technical requirements of English law, highlighted the need for the court to consider the information provided for the purposes of extradition proceedings realistically, rather than over-critically.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.