The 'sole or dominant purpose' in s 31(1)(b) of the FTRA is a fault element specified under s 5.1(2) of the Criminal Code, not a physical element attended by the default fault element of intention. The 'reasonable to conclude' formulation in s 31(1)(b) constitutes a different standard of proof within s 13.2(2) of the Code, displacing the beyond reasonable doubt standard for that element. The direction previously required by Doyle CJ in Question of Law Reserved (No 2 of 1998) — that the Crown prove the accused knew sub-$10,000 transactions need not be reported — is no longer required under the Criminal Code.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 9 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 9 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.