For a structuring offence under s 31(1) of the FTR Act, the Crown need not prove that the events did not also constitute a significant cash transaction; the same events can be characterised as both. However, the jury must be directed that the parties' intention as shown by their actions at the time of dealing — not merely subsequent book entries — must have been that there be separate transactions with allocated portions of the total money. A s 165 warning for accomplice evidence must inform the jury of the specific matters that may cause the evidence to be unreliable, not merely state that the witness 'could be in the position of an accomplice'.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 5 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 5 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.