The Education for Justice (E4J) initiative developed, with the support of academics from around the world, a series of modules on cybercrime. These university modules cover many aspects of this complex and fascinating field and include both theoretical concepts as well as practical knowledge.  Furthermore, these modules are multi-disciplinary in nature, since they focus on various topics and provide resources on different aspects of cybercrime and cybercrime investigation.

Additional pedagogical guidance for lecturers is provided in the E4J Teaching Guide on Cybercrime.

The following modules are available online: here  and  here

Teaching Guide

• Module 1: Introduction to Cybercrime
• Module 2: General Types of Cybercrime
• Module 3: Legal Frameworks and Human Rights
• Module 4: Introduction to Digital Forensics
• Module 5: Cybercrime Investigation
• Module 6: Practical Aspects of Cybercrime Investigations and Digital Forensics
• Module 7: International Cooperation against Cybercrime
• Module 8: Cybersecurity and Cybercrime Prevention – Strategies, Policies and Programmes
• Module 9: Cybersecurity and Cybercrime Prevention – Practical Applications and Measures
• Module 10: Privacy and Data Protection
• Module 11: Cyber-Enabled Intellectual Property Crime
• Module 12: Interpersonal Cybercrime
• Module 13: Cyber Organized Crime
• Module 14: Hacktivism, Terrorism, Espionage, Disinformation Campaigns and Warfare in Cyberspace

A further module of the University Module Series of Trafficking in Persons / Smuggling of Migrants is related to cybercrime:

Module 14: Links between Cybercrime, Trafficking in Persons and Smuggling of Migrants

To watch about preventing cybercrime throught education please click here

Human trafficking is happening all around us – even in Jersey. Victims are often hidden away, but you may encounter individuals or situations of concern. Knowing how to ‘spot the signs’ could save lives. To assist you in flagging issues the indicators in this link should be considered and, if you have any suspicions about human trafficking in your area, you should report it and if you are a financial institution remember your SAR responsibilities along with training needs.

The Respondent, Kevin Manning, is a solicitor (écrivain) of the Royal Court.  On 12th December, 2018, he was sentenced to a total of 3½ years imprisonment in respect of

1. twenty counts of fraudulent conversion,
2. one count of fraudulent conversion by a trustee and
3. one count of failing to comply with the requirements of the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 2008.

Following the above the Attorney General sought for an order that the Respondent is removed from the roll of solicitors of the Royal Court.  The application was brought pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court, which is expressly preserved by Article 32 of the Law Society of Jersey Law 2005.  At the end of the hearing on 31st July 2019 the Court granted the Attorney General’s application.

Background to the offending

The Respondent has been a sole practitioner as an écrivain since 1993.  His practice consisted largely of conveyancing and non-contentious matters.  In particular, he managed a number of estates and curatorships.  Each curatorship had a client account specific to the particular curatorship.

It appears that his record and account keeping was poor and as a result there came a time when his client account was deficient.  He was unable to meet payments due from the client account on behalf of various clients.  As a result he resorted to taking money from specific curatorship accounts, which he controlled, in order to meet the shortfall on general client account or other specific client accounts.

He pleaded guilty to twenty one such payments between 2008 and 2010.  Twenty of these were from specific curatorship accounts and one was from a specific client account of a trust of which he was trustee.

According to the Crown, the total amount involved came to £94,189 but the defence submitted before the Superior Number that the overall deficit was some £65,000.  The Superior Number did not resolve this difference as it was agreed that the outcome would not affect the level of sentence.  For the purposes of the present application, we were willing to proceed on the basis of a figure of £65,000 because it makes no difference to our decision whether the amount involved was £65,000 or £94,000.

The Respondent also pleaded guilty to one count of failing to keep accurate client records over a 6 year period in breach of the Money Laundering (Jersey) Order 2008, which amounted to an offence under Article 37 of the Proceeds of Crime (Jersey) Law 2008.

The matter was investigated by the Law Society and on 18th December, 2014, he was suspended by the Royal Court from practice and the Viscount was charged with taking possession of all the bank accounts relating to his practice.  He was eventually charged in 2017.

On 23rd May, 2019, the Royal Court made a compensation order pursuant to the Criminal Justice (Compensation Orders) (Jersey) Law 1994.  The Respondent’s only realisable asset was a pension fund worth £19,273.58.  The Law Society has compensated the victims in full and the compensation order was to the effect that the Respondent pay the Law Society the £19,273.58 as part recompense for the £96,524.83 paid out by the Law Society to victims.

That is the background to the current application.

The court granted the Attorney General’s application and removed the Respondent from the roll of solicitors.

To read original article please click here 

The following are the areas firms should focus on when assessing their MLRO

1. Lack of independent assessment conducted annually
2. Training not specific and effectiveness not tested
3. Staff encouraged to discuss concerns with line-manager or MLRO/DMLRO
4. Inadequate processes and procedures
5. Lack of understanding between MLRO and MLCO responsibilities
6. Unclear decision-making process regarding SARs

Sourced from

On September 25, the Joint Money Laundering Steering Group (JMLSG) announced on its website that HM Treasury has approved revisions to three chapters in Part II of the JMLSG’s anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing sectoral guidance.

The amended guidance relates to credit unions (section 4), asset finance (section 12) and brokerage services to funds (sector 20).

Section 4 Credit Unions = http://www.jmlsg.org.uk/download/10043
Sector 12 Asset Finance = http://www.jmlsg.org.uk/download/10044
Sector 20 Brokerage Services to Funds = http://www.jmlsg.org.uk/download/10045

The announcement is available here.

This update follows the first-two-ever prosecutions of financial institutions in Jersey for the offence of INTERMEDDLING under the Probate (Jersey) Law 1998 (“the Probate Law”)

By Article 23(1) of the Probate (Jersey) Law 1998, a person guilty of an offence is liable to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding twelve months or both.

Jersey firms are warned to review their procedures within their businesses relating to probate procedures.

The TWO cases being

1. November 2018 – The Attorney General v Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank PJSC, Jersey Bank, the Royal Court found a bank guilty of committing a criminal offence and fined the bank for not obtaining the necessary authorisation before transferring the assets of a deceased client out of the jurisdiction. The Court fined the Bank £25,000 and an extra £2,085 in compensation.August 2019 – Standard Bank Jersey
2. Limited was fined £20,000 after it admitted allowing a woman to use her deceased partner’s bank account to pay her rent and shopping bills. Standard Bank Jersey Limited appeared in the Royal Court where it was sentenced for allowing the woman to access the account – which it accepted should have been immediately suspended – without obtaining paperwork required by the Probate Law

ATTORNEY GENERAL’S GUIDANCE INTERMEDDLING IN ESTATES OF DECEASED PERSON 

1) These Guidelines are produced in order to clarify when it is necessary for the Registrar of Probate to refer a case of suspected intermeddling to the Attorney General.

THE PRESENCE OF ANY OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS SHOULD LEAD TO A REFERRAL:

2) The amount concerned is in excess of £10,000.

3) There are a number of persons entitled to a share of the estate and those individuals’ interests have been prejudiced by the intermeddling.

4) The person who has intermeddled is a member of a profession, membership of which would suggest either awareness of the requirements under the Probate (Jersey) Law 1998 (as amended) or awareness that such requirements are likely to exist.

5) It appears that the person who has intermeddled has acted in bad faith.

6) The intermeddling has come to light through a person other than the intermeddler.

CASES INVOLVING ALL OF THE FOLLOWING FACTORS WILL GENERALLY NOT NEED TO BE REFERRED TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:

7) The amount concerned is less than £10,000; and

8) The person who has intermeddled has acted in good faith and there is no indication that the intermeddling was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Law; and

9) The person who has intermeddled is the sole heir or beneficiary or if there is more than one heir or beneficiary, the others have indicated their approval either in advance or retrospectively, of the actions of the person who as intermeddled; and

10) The person who has intermeddled is a person with no prior experience of legal matters. Those with no prior experience of legal matters cannot be expected to have the same level of knowledge about the probate process as those who have had prior experience; and

11) There is no ground for supposing that the intermeddling was deliberately done to advance an ulterior motive, for example, to deliberately gain some advantage (financial or otherwise) or to damage the interests of a third party; and

12) The matter has only come to light because the person who has intermeddled has informed someone of what has happened, for example, where an executor has brought attention to their own intermeddling.

13) There may be circumstances where Officers of the States of Jersey Health and Social Services Department, Officers of the States of Jersey Housing Department, Officers of the States of Jersey Police, banks or other financial organisations and private nursing homes intermeddle with some part of the moveable estate of a deceased person as a direct result of providing appropriate care and services to that person. In such circumstances, the presence of ALL the following factors shall mean that the case will not generally need to be referred to the Attorney General.

14) The part of the estate concerned comprises of a cash amount of no more than £500.00 and/or personal effects of minimal value and/or wedding rings and/or engagement rings.

15) The person who has intermeddled has written notification in advance indicating the approval of their proposed actions from at least one of the heirs or beneficiaries of the estate and that approval shall contain acknowledgement that there are no known heirs or beneficiaries who they may believe might object to the action taken.

16) The person who has intermeddled has acted reasonably and in the course of their duties.

17) The person who has intermeddled has acted in good faith and there is no ground for supposing that the intermeddling was deliberately done to gain some advantage (financial or otherwise) or to damage the interests of another party.

18) The above factors are purely for guidance and the Registrar of Probate is reminded that each case will turn on its own facts.

19) If the Registrar of Probate is in any doubt as to whether to refer a matter to the Attorney General, then the matter should be so referred. March 2014

To read more click here and here