Knowledge and suspicion are subjective tests, and the burden is on the prosecutor to establish that the defendant either knew or suspected that the property was criminal property.

“Suspicion” is a low threshold:  one court has interpreted it as meaning that the defendant thinks there is “a possibility, which is more than fanciful, that the relevant fact existed.  A vague feeling of unease would not suffice.”1

1 R v. Da Silva [2006] EWCA Crim 1654.

More topics in this series