the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that the three moneylaundering offences in Part 7 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (POCA) have extraterritorial effect, such that an offence of converting criminal property under section 327(1) (c) of POCA could be tried in the United Kingdom even where the defendant, who lived and worked in Spain, committed no part of the offence within the UK.
On this website you will find information about Panteras, Mangustas, Deauvilles, Longchamps, Vallelungas and Qvale Mangustas.
Secondly, it is arguable that if the statutory draftsmen had really intended the section to have extraterritorial effect, they would simply have stated that a person will commit an offence triable in the UK even if the conversion (or transfer etc.) of the criminal property took place abroad.
It is perhaps disappointing that arguments such as these were not aired before the court.
This conclusion does not appear to withstand closer scrutiny.
First, the purpose of section 340(11)(d) is to define money laundering as a term to be used across the whole of Part 7.
For example: giving approval from the UK for payments to be made or received abroad which could fall under section 327 or section 329.