The issue of single criminality REMAINS IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS BUT has been addressed by PoCA in the UK with the introduction of the dual criminality override defence, whereby activity outside the UK that would normally be considered criminal under UK law will not constitute an offence, provided it is considered a lawful activity in the jurisdiction in which it took place.

The classic example used in the course material, of course, is the Spanish Matador earning a legitimate living in Spain before moving his money to the UK, only to face money laundering offences as the earnings are deemed to be the proceeds of crime under UK law.

Case study

Money laundering conviction in Thailand in which a Dutchman, Johan van Laarhoven, received a prison sentence of 103 years.

This particular story, though, has a slight twist in the tale (You can read the full article here – OR BELOW -)

Dutchman Johan van Laarhoven has been sentenced to 103 years in prison by a Thai court for laundering money he earned with the trade in soft drugs. According to his lawyer, Sidney Smeets, he has to serve 20 of those years.

On Twitter Smeets calls the conviction “incorrect and unjust”. “It is completely incomprehensible that he earned his money and paid tax in a decent way in the Netherlands, to then be sentenced in Thailand for money laundering”, the lawyer said to the Telegraaf. According to him, Thai judges do not understand the Dutch tolerance policy and the Dutch authorities provided “incomplete and inaccurate” information about the soft drugs policy in the Netherlands.”

Another of Van Laarhoven’s Dutch lawyers, Tim Vis, expressed similar sentiments to Omroep Brabant. “This is terrible news for Johan and his family. From the start, we stated that Thailand is not the place to deal with this matter.” Vis said to the broadcaster. He added that the Dutch Public Prosecutor’s “dubious and resentful actions” delivered Van Laarhoven to a judge “who has not sufficiently been able to explain the Dutch tolerance policy.”

Both lawyers confirmed that they are still considering whether or not to appeal. Smeets explained that Van Laarhoven can only be extradited to the Netherlands once there are no more ongoing legal proceedings. “Perhaps it is preferable that he is transferred to the Netherlands as quickly as possible.” A previous attempt to have him extradited to the Netherlands was unsuccessful.

Van Laarhoven has been in custody in a Thai prison since July last year. Smeets previously stated that the conditions in the prison are “horrid”.

You see the conviction has been founded on the fact that Van Laarhoven’s money was earned through trading in soft drugs, a crime in Thailand (and most other jurisdictions INCLUDING THE CHANNEL ISLANDS), however, this trade was carried out in his native Holland where the laws are not as clear-cut.

By way of background, the Opium Act – also referred to as the Narcotics Act – is the Netherlands’ main drug legislation.

1. The Act criminalizes possession, cultivation, trafficking and importing or exporting. The 1976 Amendments established two classes of drugs: Schedule I drugs are deemed to present an unacceptable risk to Dutch society and include heroin, cocaine, amphetamines and LSD; Schedule II drugs include “traditional hemp products” such as marijuana and hashish.

2. The sale of cannabis is technically an offence under the Opium Act, but prosecutorial guidelines provide that proceedings will only be instituted in certain situations.

3. For example, an owner or operator of a coffee shop in Holland (which is not permitted to sell alcohol) will avoid prosecution for the sale of cannabis provided no more than 5 grams is sold per person in any one transaction.

Van Laarhoven’s soft drug business has not been made clear, but based on what we are told, if he made his money in Holland, in the way described above and paid his share of taxes on those earnings, and essentially earned a living and lived a life that is considered acceptable it seems the single criminality test has been triggered.