Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
Société Générale (1951)
Société Générale pour favoriser le développement du commerce et de l'industrie en France
Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar (2002)
The Tenuous Relationship Between the Fight Against Money Laundering and the Disruption of Criminal FinanceCriminology eJournal
Nicholas Clark (1995)
The Impact of Recent Money Laundering Legislation on Financial IntermediariesJournal of Financial Crime, 3
Dishonest Assistance in Singapore and Malaysia
Int'l L. 467 at 483
J. Dietrich (2010)
The liability of accessories under statute, in equity, and in criminal law: Some common problems and (perhaps) common solutionsMelbourne University Law Review, 34
B. Rider (1999)
The Limits of the Law: An Analysis of the Interrelationship of the Criminal and Civil Law in the Control of Money LaunderingJournal of Money Laundering Control, 2
Liability for Intermeddling with Trusts
Wilful Ignorance and Criminal Liability" (1992) 70(6) Texas L
H. Tang (1997)
Equity and Trusts
All ER 769 at 777)
(1998)
Contrived Ignorance
(1996)
Knowing Assistance and Knowing Receipt: Taking Stock
Kris Hinterseer (2001)
The Wolfsberg Anti‐Money Laundering PrinciplesJournal of Money Laundering Control, 5
(1999)
Nelsonian" refers to a famous English one-eyed admiral who held a telescope to his blind eye so that he would not see. See Sue Farran
(1955)
supra note 38 (citing James & Son Limited v. Smee
P. Birks, A. Pretto (2002)
Breach of trust
J. Dietrich, P. Ridge (2007)
'The receipt of what?': Questions concerning third party recipient liability in equity and unjust enrichmentMelbourne University Law Review, 31
See ibid
Westminster City Council v. Croyalrange [1986] 2 All ER 353
G. Williams (1961)
Criminal Law: The General Part
Fiduciary Relationships, T. Youdan (1989)
Equity, fiduciaries and trusts
Agip (Africa) Ltd v. Jackson [1990] Ch 265 at 291-92
Douglas Husak, C. Callender (2010)
Articles: Wilful Ignorance, Knowledge, and The “Equal Culpability” Thesis: A Study of The Deeper Significance of The Principle of Legality
Patrick Shine (2012)
Dishonesty in civil commercial claims: a state of mind or a course of conduct?The Journal of Business Law
Richard Nolan (2000)
HOW KNOWING IS KNOWING RECEIPT?The Cambridge Law Journal, 59
(1992)
Eagle Trust Plc v. SBC Securities Ltd
(1993)
The Liability of Third Parties for Knowing Receipt or Assistance
Abstract Determining civil liability for dishonest assistance in breach of fiduciary duty requires courts to consider a combination of subjective and objective factors. Taking into account the person’s experience, intelligence and reasons for acting (subjective factors), did the person have sufficient knowledge of the transaction (subjective factor) so as to render participation in the transaction contrary to ordinary standards of honest behaviour (objective factor)? The piecemeal development of this test, as well as its complexity, led to inconsistency and confusion in application. In 2006, the Privy Council in Barlow Clowes International Ltd (in liq) v. Eurotrust International Ltd clarified that the person accused of dishonest assistance need not actually realise that involvement in the transaction would breach ordinary standards of honesty. This article assesses how the dishonest assistance test has been applied since Barlow Clowes in two Commonwealth countries: Singapore and Malaysia. The article submits that recent Singaporean and Malaysian judgments have not satisfactorily articulated the various elements of the dishonest assistance test, and thus an attempt is made to provide a clear and concise formulation of the test. The article further posits that while Barlow Clowes indeed added badly needed clarity, it did so only with respect to the particular issue addressed by the Privy Council’s judgment. In other areas no less important – whether there is an active–passive dichotomy between dishonest assistance and knowing receipt, and the nature of wilful blindness in the non-criminal law context – fundamental questions about the contours of the test remain. The article proposes that there should not be an active–passive distinction, and that the test for wilful blindness – a type of dishonest assistance involving suspicion and turning a blind eye – should be revised to contain both subjective and objective elements.
Asian Journal of Comparative Law – de Gruyter
Published: Jan 1, 2014
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.