Home Business Personal Criminal Liability in Cyprus when Issuing a Cheque on Behalf of...

Personal Criminal Liability in Cyprus when Issuing a Cheque on Behalf of the Company

2296
214
Therefore, the official must prove solely the below components (actus reus):
(1) The issue of a cheque; 
(2) That the cheque was conferred, on or once its maturity date, at the relevant Bank; 
(3) The non-payment of the cheque as a result of lack of accessible funds of the institution or as a result of the very fact that the issuer’s account was closed at the time of presentation; 
(4) 
FIND additional LEGAL ARTICLES
Type any word(s)
SEARCH
The non-payment of the cheque for an amount of fifteen days of its 1st presentation. 
When it involves a bouncing cheque issued by a corporation, then the person of the cheque (most in all probability its Director) can be liable as Associate in Nursing supporter to the offense of Art. 305A, per Art. twenty (c) of the Criminal Code. 
However, the wrongdoing of Associate in Nursing supporter includes: a) help or motivation b) to Associate in the Nursing offense; planning (guilty mind) is predicted to be associated with each component (see Pavlopoulos V. Skopy Show works (2003) a pair of CLR 261). 
In Johnson v. Youden [1950] one K.B. 455 it had been declared that “before an individual are often guilty of aiding Associate in Nursing abetting the commission of an offence, he should a minimum of grasp the essential matters that represent that offence”, and additionally in National Coal Board v. Gamble [1959] one K.B. eleven it had been declared that “… aiding and abetting may be a crime that needs proof of planning, that’s to mention, of intention to assist also as of information of the circumstances”). 
Given the on top of, difficulties arise once it involves evidencing that the person of a company’s cheque, provided aid to the commission of against the law, particularly once it involves giant firms with accounting departments, CFOs, and postdated cheques. 
Firstly, so as to prove that the person had the required planning, once corporal punishment the cheque on behalf of the corporation, the prosecution must prove the time of the language. only if the time of the language is thought, the prosecution will offer proof proving, that at the time of the language of the cheque, the person knew or owed to had identified that the cheque would bounce. 

Wilful vision defect 
“A demand of information is typically control to be glad by proof of “willful blindness” as wherever “the litigator had deliberately shut his eyes to the apparent or dodged inquiry as a result of the suspected the reality, however, didn’t need to possess his suspicion confirmed” (Westminster council v. Croyalgrange [1986] a pair of All E.R. 353 at p. 359 (H.L.) (see HENRY HARRY HADFIELD V. Customs Department (2002) a pair of CLR 414).
According to the on top of, the willful vision defect of a litigator, i.e. once he’s wilfully movement his eyes to the apparent, then such behavior isn’t excusable and is reprehensively liable.
Recklessness
In a terribly recent and fascinating case (see Ioannides V. Gamestop store Ltd a.a. 161/2014, 30/6/2017) it had been declared that: “… it doesn’t appear necessary to prove the intention on the part of the supporter to commit the principal offense” … “It is sufficient, in our judgment, if the supporter knew the facts constituting the principal offense of issue a bouncing cheque and was indifferent or reckless with relation to whether or not the cheque would be paid once it had been conferred to the Bank for payment.” … “Therefore, neither the nonparticipation of the respondent a pair of within the company’s daily money statements nor the promise, general and imprecise, of her husband, that he would deposit the cash he would receive from a court case, on the account of the corporation from that the cheque was issued, can be a defense for the respondent a pair of …”
In Smith and Hogan’s legal code it’s declared that the first which means of “willful” is “deliberate” however it should additionally embrace foolhardiness, as accepted by the bulk of the House of Lords in Sheppard (1981 AC 394). it’s additionally aforesaid that an individual UN agency doesn’t shall cause a harmful result might take Associate in Nursing unwarranted risk of inflicting it. If he will thus, he could also be controlled to be reckless.

214 COMMENTS

  1. Spot on with this write-up, I honestly feel this site needs a lot more attention. I’ll probably be returning to see more, thanks for the information!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here