R v Da Silva
For the purposes of money laundering offences, suspicion means a possibility that is more than fanciful that the relevant facts exist, and a vague feeling of unease is not enough.
Facts
Ms Da Silva was charged with an offence of assisting another to retain the benefit of criminal conduct, under the Criminal Justice Act 1988, which required that she knew or suspected that the person was engaged in criminal conduct. The judge directed the jury on the meaning of suspicion, and she was convicted. She appealed, arguing that the direction was wrong.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. Longmore LJ said that the essential element of the word suspect 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 suspicion did not need to be clear or firmly grounded and targeted on specific facts, or based on reasonable grounds. The definition has been applied to money laundering offences and reporting obligations under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
Related cases on financial crime, sanctions and market misconduct
- Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 39, [2014] AC 700
- Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd [2017] UKSC 67, [2018] AC 391
- K Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc [2006] EWCA Civ 1039, [2007] 1 WLR 311
- National Crime Agency v Baker [2020] EWHC 822 (Admin)
- National Crime Agency v Hajiyeva [2020] EWCA Civ 108
- R v GH [2015] UKSC 24, [2015] 1 WLR 2126
- R v Hayes [2015] EWCA Crim 1944
- R v Hayes and Palombo [2025] UKSC 29
Studying banking and finance law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
