A blog post from Corker Bining on 19th December about 2 recent cases in the UK that concludes by saying that the lesson to be drawn from the cases, Honey Rose and Lane & Letts, is that whilst some offences of unintended consequence may on first reading appear to criminalise conduct irrespective of mens rea, the courts have repeatedly decided that these are not strict liability offences, and that some proof of a culpable mental state is required. As such, both judgments are good news for regulated professionals, who can take comfort that a prosecution under section 330 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 is unlikely to succeed where the suspect information is merely available but not actually known to the defendant.
https://www.corkerbinning.com/unintentionally-funding-terror-and-the-implications-for-professionals/
