 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Jersey Unreported Judgments |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Jersey Unreported Judgments >> AG v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC, Jersey Branch [2018] JRC 180 (28 September 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2018/2018_180.html Cite as: [2018] JRC 180 |
||
[New search] [Help]
Inferior Number Sentencing - probate - intermeddling.
|
Before : |
Sir William Bailhache, Bailiff, and Jurats Ronge and Pitman. |
The Attorney General
-v-
ABU Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC, Jersey Branch.
Sentencing by the Inferior Number of the Royal Court, following a guilty plea to the following charge:
|
1 count of: |
Intermeddling, contrary to Article 23(1) of the Probate (Jersey) Law 1998 (Count 1). |
Plea: Guilty.
Details of Offence:
An Abu Dhabi court directed that all sums held by an Abu Dhabi bank in the name of a deceased be paid into court so that the estate might be managed in accordance with UAE probate law. Bank staff in UAE emailed two employees of its Jersey branch accordingly.
Notwithstanding an internal freezing measure that had been imposed following the death of the account holder, and without the requisite grant of Jersey probate, the Jersey branch transferred the contents of the deceased's Jersey account (approximately $400,000) to the bank's head office in UAE whence it was paid into court.
There was no indication that the deceased's heirs had been prejudiced and the bank gave undertakings to reimburse in any event. The bank reviewed and improved its internal procedures.
Details of Mitigation:
Guilty plea at an early stage; voluntarily reported offence; transfer made in error; no intention to profit from the failure.
Previous Convictions:
No previous convictions.
Conclusions:
|
Count 1: |
£125,000 fine. |
Total: £125,000 fine.
This was the first case of a financial institution being sentenced in the Royal Court for the offence of intermeddling. The Crown invited the Court to have regard to the JFSC's recently published Methodology Paper relating to the calculation of penalties under the Financial Services Commission (Financial Penalties) (Jersey) Order 2015.
The Crown sought a compensation order in the sum of £2085.27 for the stamp duty that was not paid.
Costs Order sought in the sum of £5,000.
Sentence and Observations of Court:
|
Count 1: |
£25,000 fine. |
Compensation Order made in the sum of £2,085.27.
No Costs Ordered.
Total: 27,085.27 to be paid within 2 weeks.
D. J. Hopwood., Esq, Crown Advocate.
Advocate J. D. Kelleher for the Defendant Company.
JUDGMENT
THE BAILIFF:
1. The reasons for this sentence are going to be handed down later but the Court imposes a fine for intermeddling, contrary to Article 23(1) of the Probate (Jersey) Law 1998, in the sum of £25,000.
2. The Court acknowledges that this was a mistake or two by the Bank and has taken account of all the mitigation which has been advanced and the purposes of the legislation, and had regard to what the position by comparison would be if one were facing a fraudster who had acted with guilty intent were the circumstances would be quite different.
3. It has been made plain already the Court does not propose to approach the question of a fine by the application of the Guidelines for Civil Penalties set out by the Financial Services Commission and as I say the full reasons will be delivered later.
4. Compensation of £2,085.27, that is so ordered.
5. Two weeks' to pay.