R v Saik
For statutory conspiracy, the defendant must intend or know that the relevant facts will exist, and suspicion that money is the proceeds of crime is not enough.
Facts
Mr Saik ran a bureau de change in London. He was charged with conspiracy to launder money, under section 1 of the Criminal Law Act 1977. The prosecution's case was that he had agreed with others to convert cash that he knew or suspected was the proceeds of drug trafficking or other crime. He pleaded guilty on the basis that he suspected, but did not know, that the money was the proceeds of crime.
Legal principle
The House of Lords quashed the conviction, by a majority. Lord Nicholls said that, under section 1(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1977, where the substantive offence can be committed by a person who suspects a fact, such as that money is the proceeds of crime, a person is guilty of conspiracy only if he and at least one other party to the agreement intend or know that the fact will exist when the conduct constituting the offence takes place. Suspicion is not enough for conspiracy, even if it is enough for the full offence.
Related cases on inchoate offences and accessorial liability
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1975) [1975] QB 773
- Attorney General's Reference (No 1 of 1992) [1993] 1 WLR 274
- DPP for Northern Ireland v Maxwell [1978] 1 WLR 1350
- Haughton v Smith [1975] AC 476
- National Coal Board v Gamble [1959] 1 QB 11
- R v Anderson [1986] AC 27
- R v Bainbridge [1960] 1 QB 129
- R v Becerra and Cooper (1975) 62 Cr App R 212
Studying criminal 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.
