英语论文网

d from the High Court in an emergency application of which A Ltd was not notified and Mr Justice Lightman ( a different Judge) gave an injunction (a Court Order)  which effectively froze A Ltd’s bank accounts but revealed nothing about its origins of the motives for the application.
• An angry customer (A Ltd) was beginning to wonder where its money was..…
The bank wrote to A Ltd in the most general of terms through its solicitors informing A Ltd that no further payments could be made on the account until the bank’s own legal advisers had examined certain aspects of transactions on it.
By the end of 1999 A Ltd applied to Court for payment out to it of sums held in the account and although the bank attempted at that hearing (before a different Judge again!) to still keep the reasons for the original injunction secret from A Ltd and its representatives.

留学生作业代写网BUT the effect of this application and hearing before Court was to achieve the very objective which the police and investigation authorities, along with the bank, were trying to avoid all along., namely it made A Ltd and its advisors aware of the motive behind the earlier secret application to Court by the bank and they could therefore conclude that serious criminal investigations were underway.
Who should pay for all this legal argument? This led to  more Court proceedings…. as to the issue of how costs should be borne as between the bank and A Ltd  and directions  how best to proceed in future cases such as this.  Judge ruled the Judge at Stage 1 of the case  had been wrong to grant the original injunction sought by the bank freezing A Ltd’ account.
The judge looked for guidance on the application of the tipping-off legislation and expressed his unhappiness with lack of firm and specific police evidence to assist the bank in support of that original application. He stressed that this was  NOT the fault of the bank itself as the police had told it that they did not wish any of the information on which its suspicions were based to be laid before the Courts and that they would regard this as tipping-off….but the bank still had to pay its own legal costs
Court of Appeal judge did acknowledge the extreme nature of the
bank’s dilemma along with the exceptional public policy interest lying behind  money laundering legislation:
“Money laundering is an increasingly common problem of large-scale crime. It is of the greatest public importance that the police should be supported by financial institutions in their attempts to prevent money laundering and to detect it when it happens. When a financial institution co-operates with the authorities, then the courts should be sympathetic to an application for their assistance, if assistance is really necessary.”
But he also warned the Law Enforcement authorities against misusing
 the offence of tipping-off against financial institutions and bullying them by threatening them with prosecution for “tipping off” 

 

本论文由英语论文网提供整理，提供论文代写，英语论文代写，代写论文，代写英语论文，代写留学生论文，代写英文论文，留学生论文代写相关核心关键词搜索。