R v Saik [2006] UKHL 18

Facts

  • The case concerns the interpretation and application of section 93C(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1993, relating to money laundering offenses.
  • The defendant was prosecuted for assisting others in retaining benefits from drug trafficking through financial arrangements.
  • Prior legal uncertainty existed regarding whether suspicion, negligence, or simply ignoring risks about the illegal origin of property sufficed for conviction.
  • The prosecution was required to establish whether the defendant knew or believed that the relevant property was derived from criminal conduct.

Issues

  1. Whether conviction under section 93C(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 requires proof that the defendant actually knew or believed the property was of unlawful origin.
  2. Whether a lower threshold, such as suspicion, negligence, or failing to verify the source of funds, is sufficient for criminal liability in money laundering cases.
  3. Whether knowledge or belief must relate to the essential fact that the property is connected to crime, or if awareness of other details is adequate.

Decision

  • The House of Lords held that for liability under section 93C(2), the prosecution must prove the defendant actually knew or believed the property originated from unlawful conduct.
  • The Court rejected the notion that negligence, failing to verify, or simply being suspicious suffices for conviction.
  • Suspicion was clarified as requiring a genuine personal belief in the criminal origin of the property, not merely acknowledgment of a risk.
  • The required knowledge or belief must specifically concern the property's criminal provenance—awareness of unrelated facts is insufficient.

Legal Principles

  • Conviction for money laundering requires evidence of the defendant’s actual knowledge or belief that the property is the proceeds of crime.
  • Negligence or recklessness regarding the source of property does not meet the statutory threshold for criminal liability.
  • "Suspicion" in this context means an active belief in the likelihood of the criminal origin of the property, not passive awareness or risk recognition.
  • Knowledge or belief must pertain to the essential fact of the property’s illicit source to satisfy the legal test for intent.

Conclusion

R v Saik [2006] UKHL 18 is a leading authority affirming that criminal liability for money laundering can only arise where there is proof of the defendant’s genuine knowledge or belief regarding the criminal provenance of the property, ensuring that mere carelessness or suspicion does not result in conviction.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal