Prosecution of UK nationals for crimes abroad

There is a lot of indecision on forums about whether the Mcs could be prosecuted in the UK for a crime committed abroad. From what I can find, it seems they can. But I`m not au fait with legal laws, sub-sections etc., so could be wrong. I wish we had someone on here that was up to date with all this stuff.

Offences Against The Person Act 1861
"9 Murder or manslaughter abroad.

Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, . . . F1, may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished . . . F1 in England or Ireland . . . F1: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland, in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act."
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/9

Sexual Offences Act 2003
"Offences outside the United Kingdom

[F2(1)

If—

(a)a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and

(b)the act, if done in England and Wales F3. . . , would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,

the United Kingdom national is guilty in [F4England and Wales] of that sexual offence.
(2)If—

(a)a United Kingdom resident does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom,

(b)the act constitutes an offence under the law in force in that country, and

(c)the act, if done in England and Wales F5. . . , would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies,

the United Kingdom resident is guilty in [F6England and Wales] of that sexual offence.
(3)If—

(a)a person does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom at a time when the person was not a United Kingdom national or a United Kingdom resident,

(b)the act constituted an offence under the law in force in that country,

(c)the act, if done in England and Wales F7. . . , would have constituted a sexual offence to which this section applies, and

(d)the person meets the residence or nationality condition at the relevant time,

proceedings may be brought against the person in [F8England and Wales] for that sexual offence as if the person had done the act there.
(4)The person meets the residence or nationality condition at the relevant time if the person is a United Kingdom national or a United Kingdom resident at the time when the proceedings are brought.

(5)An act punishable under the law in force in any country constitutes an offence under that law for the purposes of subsections (2) and (3) however it is described in that law.

(6)The condition in subsection (2)(b) or (3)(b) is to be taken to be met unless, not later than rules of court may provide, the defendant serves on the prosecution a notice—

(a)stating that, on the facts as alleged with respect to the act in question, the condition is not in the defendant's opinion met,

(b)showing the grounds for that opinion, and

(c)requiring the prosecution to prove that it is met.

(7)But the court, if it thinks fit, may permit the defendant to require the prosecution to prove that the condition is met without service of a notice under subsection (6).

(8)In the Crown Court the question whether the condition is met is to be decided by the judge alone.

(9)In this section—

“country” includes territory;
“United Kingdom national” means an individual who is—
(a)a British citizen, a British overseas territories citizen, a British National (Overseas) or a British Overseas citizen;
(b)a person who under the British Nationality Act 1981 is a British subject; or
(c)a British protected person within the meaning of that Act;
“United Kingdom resident” means an individual who is resident in the United Kingdom.
(10)Schedule 2 lists the sexual offences to which this section applies.]] "


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/72

CPS Directive

"Director's Guidance on the handling of cases where the jurisdiction to prosecute is shared with prosecuting authorities overseas

Published: 17 July 2013

Introduction
Sharing information in cases of concurrent jurisdiction
Consultation
Principles to be applied
Introduction
1. Investigators and prosecutors in England and Wales are committed to working with investigation and prosecution agencies in other countries to combat crime. Where crime is committed in more than one jurisdiction, different offences may be committed in different locations. This document provides guidance for CPS prosecutors in cases where criminal investigations have been commenced in more than one jurisdiction and involve suspected criminal conduct that crosses international boundaries. In this document such cases are referred to as cases of concurrent jurisdiction. These guidelines, which embrace the main principles of the Eurojust Guidelines issued in 2003, have immediate effect. Prosecutors are also reminded of the guidance issued in 2009 on the handling of terrorist cases where the jurisdiction to prosecute is shared by prosecuting authorities within the UK.

2. The guidelines follow a step-by-step approach to determining issues arising in cases with concurrent jurisdiction. Firstly, as far as the law permits, there should be early sharing of information between prosecutors with an interest in the case. Secondly, prosecutors should consult on cases and the issues arising from concurrent jurisdiction, recognising that agencies in different jurisdictions operate within procedures established by their own domestic laws. Thirdly, in reaching a decision on whether a prosecution should take place in England and Wales, CPS prosecutors should apply the principles set out in these guidelines. As a matter of principle any decision on questions arising from concurrent jurisdiction should be, and should be seen to be, fair and objective. Each case should be considered on its own facts and merits.

Sharing information in cases of concurrent jurisdiction
3. Where issues of concurrent jurisdiction arise, investigators and prosecutors in England and Wales should consult closely from the outset of investigations, consistent with the procedures established by the agencies. They should also, where possible and appropriate to do so, consult closely with investigators and prosecutors in such other countries which have an interest in prosecuting the conduct. The aim of a co-operative approach is to agree a co-ordinated strategy in relation to the particular case that respects the independence of the individual jurisdictions but recognises the benefits of co-operation in achieving effective law enforcement.

4. Where it is possible and appropriate to share information, the information shared between investigators and prosecutors in England and Wales and the investigators and prosecutors in such other countries as have an interest in prosecuting the case should include the facts of the case, key evidence, representations on jurisdictional issues and, as appropriate, any other consideration which will enable the prosecutors to develop a case strategy and resolve issues arising from concurrent jurisdiction. Prosecutors must have regard to the desirability of not exposing to disclosure within this jurisdiction material which is subject to restrictions on disclosure in the jurisdiction supplying it.

5. The information shared in accordance with this guidance is provided in order that prosecutors in England and Wales and in other countries with an interest in prosecuting the case may reach decisions on issues arising from concurrent jurisdiction. The information should not be disclosed to other countries without permission of the originating state.

Consultation
6. The aim of consultation, having shared the information set out at paragraph 4, is to enable each country’s prosecutors to decide on the issues arising from concurrent jurisdiction including, but not limited to:

a) Where and how investigations may be most effectively pursued;
b) Where and how prosecutions should be initiated, continued or discontinued; or
c) Whether and how aspects of the case should be pursued in different jurisdictions'.

7. It is for the prosecuting authority, having applied the principles set out in this guidance, to decide whether a case should properly be prosecuted in its country where that is in accordance with the law and the public interest. In England and Wales any decision to prosecute in this jurisdiction must be made in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors (the Code).

Principles to be applied
8. In deciding where a case with concurrent jurisdiction should be prosecuted, CPS prosecutors in England and Wales should apply the following principles:

So long as appropriate charges can properly be brought which reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending supported by admissible evidence, a prosecution should ordinarily be brought in the jurisdiction where most of the criminality or most of the loss or harm occurred.
Where potentially relevant material may be held in another jurisdiction, the prospects of the material being identified and provided to prosecutors in England and Wales for review in accordance with disclosure obligations in this jurisdiction will be an important consideration in deciding whether appropriate charges can properly be brought in England and Wales.
Provided it is practicable to do so and consistent with principles 1) and 2) above, where crime is committed in more than one jurisdiction, all relevant prosecutions should take place in one jurisdiction.
Other factors relevant to any determination by CPS prosecutors as to where a prosecution should take place include:
i) the location of the witnesses, their ability to give evidence in another jurisdiction and where appropriate, their right to be protected;
ii) the location of the accused and his or her connections with the United Kingdom;
iii) the location of any co-defendants and/or other suspects; and
iv) the availability or otherwise of extradition or transfer proceedings and the prospect of such proceedings succeeding.

Where all other factors are finely balanced, any delay introduced by proceeding in one jurisdiction rather than another and the cost and resources of prosecuting in one jurisdiction rather than another may be relevant.
Although the relative sentencing powers and/or powers to recover the proceeds of crime should not be a primary factor in determining where a case should be prosecuted, CPS prosecutors should always ensure that there are available potential sentences and powers of recovery to reflect the seriousness and extent of the offending supported by the evidence.
9. Decisions in cases of concurrent jurisdiction may need to be reviewed where circumstances change, but circumstances will rarely change to such an extent that a compelling case could be made for proceedings already underway in one jurisdiction to be discontinued and commenced instead in another jurisdiction.

10. Unless the criminal conduct relied upon in an extradition request is already being investigated with a view to prosecution in England and Wales, the receipt of such a request, and the making of any orders pursuant to such a request, do not, without more, require CPS prosecutors in England and Wales to consider or reconsider whether a prosecution for the conduct in question should be brought in this jurisdiction.

11. A few offences allow the courts of England and Wales to try UK nationals for offences committed wholly abroad, which is known as extraterritorial jurisdiction. Specific public policy considerations apply in these cases which the current Guidelines are not designed to cover. Accordingly prosecutorial decisions in such cases are not bound by these Guidelines.

Crown Prosecution Service
The Crown Prosecution Service
Rose Court, 2 Southwark Bridge,
London, SE1 9HS
Tel: 020 3357 0000 "
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/directors_guidance/director_s_guidance_on_concurrent_jurisdiction.html

It is my perception, that any major crime committed abroad by a UK citizen or resident, can be prosecuted in the U.K. E.g. negligence wouldn't, but murder, manslaughter and sexual offense [and fraud?] would/could.

Châtelaine wrote:It is my perception, that any major crime committed abroad by a UK citizen or resident, can be prosecuted in the U.K. E.g. negligence wouldn't, but murder, manslaughter and sexual offense [and fraud?] would/could.

I found this website, I don't know if it is of any help.  I've only copied some of the paragraphs as most of them don't relate to this case -

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/cmselect/cmquad/419/41920.htm

The following is a list of offences committed overseas for which a British citizen could be prosecuted in this country. The list is based on Archbold Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice 2007:

i.  Sexual offences committed against children and young people under the age of 16 (Sexual Offences (Conspiracy and Incitement) Act 1996 and Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.72 and Schedule 2);

ii.  Trafficking for sexual exploitation under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, ss.57-60;

iii.  Offences of dishonesty and blackmail where property is despatched from, or received at, a place in England and Wales; or where there is a communication of information etc. sent by any means from a place in England and Wales to a place elsewhere, or from a place elsewhere to a place in England and Wales (Criminal Justice Act 1993 ss.1-6);

iv.  Offences connected with aircraft (Civil Aviation Act 1982 s.92);

v.  Homicide (Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s.9-10);

vi.  Offences in connection with taxation etc. within the European Community (Criminal Justice Act 1993, s.71);

vii.  Offences by servants of the Crown (Criminal Justice Act 1948 s.31(1);

viii.  Offences in connection with the slave trade (Slave Trade Act 1873);

ix.  Offences under the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 (Merchant Shipping Act 1995 ss.279-281) offences committed by British seamen (Merchant Shipping Act 1995 s.282) and offences in the Admiralty jurisdiction;

x.  Offences on offshore installations (Petroleum Act 1998 s.10);

xi.  Bribery and corruption committed outside the UK (Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, s.109)

Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info. They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

In every western legal system, a crime that is considered universally as a crime, like murder of any degree, is prosecutable by the suspect's home country, regardless where the crime took place.
Whether that's practically manageable is a different matter.

I've read Cristobell, who writes in her blog that the British courts would have no jurisdiction whatsoever, before going on about SY acting from some conspiracy something. She's wrong.

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info.  They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

The other thing to take note of IMO is the absence from the list of offences of any kind of reference to abduction or kidnap. Worth remembering next time you get involved in a conversation with someone who has only had the MSM view. E.g."I see what you're saying but British police have no jurisdiction to investigate an abduction in Portugal, yet they are investigating something. What on earth could it be then" and then gently push them in the direction of your preferred theory

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info.  They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

The other thing to take note of IMO is the absence from the list of offences of any kind of reference to abduction or kidnap. Worth remembering next time you get involved in a conversation with someone who has only had the MSM view. E.g."I see what you're saying but British police have no jurisdiction to investigate an abduction in Portugal, yet they are investigating something. What on earth could it be then" and then gently push them in the direction of your preferred theory

We weren't in fact referring to an abduction or kidnapping.  Didn't you read the posts.  We aren't obviously interested in any reference to an abduction or kidnapping as I think you may no doubt know after so many years but still keep ignoring that Eddie and Keela put those two theories to bed.

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info.  They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

The other thing to take note of IMO is the absence from the list of offences of any kind of reference to abduction or kidnap. Worth remembering next time you get involved in a conversation with someone who has only had the MSM view. E.g."I see what you're saying but British police have no jurisdiction to investigate an abduction in Portugal, yet they are investigating something. What on earth could it be then" and then gently push them in the direction of your preferred theory

The mentioned list doesn't include the victim of the crime being a British citizen. A child, even. Pretty sure abduction of a British child by a British suspect's prosecuteable in Britain.

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info.  They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

The other thing to take note of IMO is the absence from the list of offences of any kind of reference to abduction or kidnap. Worth remembering next time you get involved in a conversation with someone who has only had the MSM view. E.g."I see what you're saying but British police have no jurisdiction to investigate an abduction in Portugal, yet they are investigating something. What on earth could it be then" and then gently push them in the direction of your preferred theory

We weren't in fact referring to an abduction or kidnapping.  Didn't you read the posts.  We aren't obviously interested in any reference to an abduction or kidnapping as I think you may no doubt know after so many years but still keep ignoring that Eddie and Keela put those two theories to bed.

I'm well aware that the thread isn't about abduction or kidnapping and yes I have read every post in it as well as the complete list of offences committed abroad, triable in the UK that you linked to.

I'm relatively new to the intrigue surrounding Madeleine's disappearance but very quickly became sceptical of the "official" abduction story and think that perhaps you are either confusing me with someone else or have misunderstood the point that I was making. In case it's the latter, I was pointing out that SY cannot, because they have no jurisdiction, investigate the abduction that TM and the MSM would have us believe took place. This is confirmed by the link that you posted. I was further suggesting that this fact could be useful in conversations with others whose only source of info about the case is the MSM and gave an example of how it could be used to educate.

I'm not sure what it is that you think I keep ignoring

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info.  They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

The other thing to take note of IMO is the absence from the list of offences of any kind of reference to abduction or kidnap. Worth remembering next time you get involved in a conversation with someone who has only had the MSM view. E.g."I see what you're saying but British police have no jurisdiction to investigate an abduction in Portugal, yet they are investigating something. What on earth could it be then" and then gently push them in the direction of your preferred theory

We weren't in fact referring to an abduction or kidnapping.  Didn't you read the posts.  We aren't obviously interested in any reference to an abduction or kidnapping as I think you may no doubt know after so many years but still keep ignoring that Eddie and Keela put those two theories to bed.

I'm well aware that the thread isn't about abduction or kidnapping and yes I have read every post in it as well as the complete list of offences committed abroad, triable in the UK that you linked to.

I'm relatively new to the intrigue surrounding Madeleine's disappearance but very quickly became sceptical of the "official" abduction story and think that perhaps you are either confusing me with someone else or have misunderstood the point that I was making. In case it's the latter, I was pointing out that SY cannot, because they have no jurisdiction, investigate the abduction that TM and the MSM would have us believe took place. This is confirmed by the link that you posted. I was further suggesting that this fact could be useful in conversations with others whose only source of info about the case is the MSM and gave an example of how it could be used to educate.

I'm not sure what it is that you think I keep ignoring

I'm with you AndyB,if according to the info supplied abduction doesn't come under any heading where did SY come up with their "abduction as if it occurred in the uk".is that their get out clause.

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info.  They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

The other thing to take note of IMO is the absence from the list of offences of any kind of reference to abduction or kidnap. Worth remembering next time you get involved in a conversation with someone who has only had the MSM view. E.g."I see what you're saying but British police have no jurisdiction to investigate an abduction in Portugal, yet they are investigating something. What on earth could it be then" and then gently push them in the direction of your preferred theory

We weren't in fact referring to an abduction or kidnapping.  Didn't you read the posts.  We aren't obviously interested in any reference to an abduction or kidnapping as I think you may no doubt know after so many years but still keep ignoring that Eddie and Keela put those two theories to bed.

I'm well aware that the thread isn't about abduction or kidnapping and yes I have read every post in it as well as the complete list of offences committed abroad, triable in the UK that you linked to.

I'm relatively new to the intrigue surrounding Madeleine's disappearance but very quickly became sceptical of the "official" abduction story and think that perhaps you are either confusing me with someone else or have misunderstood the point that I was making. In case it's the latter, I was pointing out that SY cannot, because they have no jurisdiction, investigate the abduction that TM and the MSM would have us believe took place. This is confirmed by the link that you posted. I was further suggesting that this fact could be useful in conversations with others whose only source of info about the case is the MSM and gave an example of how it could be used to educate.

I'm not sure what it is that you think I keep ignoring

If there was no abduction or kidnapping then the website is appropriate for what may have taken place. I wasn't even thinking about a kidnapping or abduction as to my mind both are a fallacy.

If you want to find any UK legal legislature about UK citizens being held accountable and being taken to trial in the UK for abduction or kidnapping in an European country why don't you look it up yourself.

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info.  They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

The other thing to take note of IMO is the absence from the list of offences of any kind of reference to abduction or kidnap. Worth remembering next time you get involved in a conversation with someone who has only had the MSM view. E.g."I see what you're saying but British police have no jurisdiction to investigate an abduction in Portugal, yet they are investigating something. What on earth could it be then" and then gently push them in the direction of your preferred theory

We weren't in fact referring to an abduction or kidnapping.  Didn't you read the posts.  We aren't obviously interested in any reference to an abduction or kidnapping as I think you may no doubt know after so many years but still keep ignoring that Eddie and Keela put those two theories to bed.

I'm well aware that the thread isn't about abduction or kidnapping and yes I have read every post in it as well as the complete list of offences committed abroad, triable in the UK that you linked to.

I'm relatively new to the intrigue surrounding Madeleine's disappearance but very quickly became sceptical of the "official" abduction story and think that perhaps you are either confusing me with someone else or have misunderstood the point that I was making. In case it's the latter, I was pointing out that SY cannot, because they have no jurisdiction, investigate the abduction that TM and the MSM would have us believe took place. This is confirmed by the link that you posted. I was further suggesting that this fact could be useful in conversations with others whose only source of info about the case is the MSM and gave an example of how it could be used to educate.

I'm not sure what it is that you think I keep ignoring

If there was no abduction or kidnapping then the website is appropriate for what may have taken place.  I wasn't even thinking about a kidnapping or abduction as to my mind both are a fallacy.

If you want to find any UK legal legislature about UK citizens being held accountable and being taken to trial in the UK for abduction or kidnapping in an European country why don't you look it up yourself.

There isn't any and that was my point.

Can someone else explain (via pm if necessary) what DFM's problem is because I'm totally at a loss to understand where they're coming from. I thought I'd clarified things with my last post but obviously not

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info.  They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

The other thing to take note of IMO is the absence from the list of offences of any kind of reference to abduction or kidnap. Worth remembering next time you get involved in a conversation with someone who has only had the MSM view. E.g."I see what you're saying but British police have no jurisdiction to investigate an abduction in Portugal, yet they are investigating something. What on earth could it be then" and then gently push them in the direction of your preferred theory

We weren't in fact referring to an abduction or kidnapping.  Didn't you read the posts.  We aren't obviously interested in any reference to an abduction or kidnapping as I think you may no doubt know after so many years but still keep ignoring that Eddie and Keela put those two theories to bed.

I'm well aware that the thread isn't about abduction or kidnapping and yes I have read every post in it as well as the complete list of offences committed abroad, triable in the UK that you linked to.

I'm relatively new to the intrigue surrounding Madeleine's disappearance but very quickly became sceptical of the "official" abduction story and think that perhaps you are either confusing me with someone else or have misunderstood the point that I was making. In case it's the latter, I was pointing out that SY cannot, because they have no jurisdiction, investigate the abduction that TM and the MSM would have us believe took place. This is confirmed by the link that you posted. I was further suggesting that this fact could be useful in conversations with others whose only source of info about the case is the MSM and gave an example of how it could be used to educate.

I'm not sure what it is that you think I keep ignoring

If there was no abduction or kidnapping then the website is appropriate for what may have taken place.  I wasn't even thinking about a kidnapping or abduction as to my mind both are a fallacy.

If you want to find any UK legal legislature about UK citizens being held accountable and being taken to trial in the UK for abduction or kidnapping in an European country why don't you look it up yourself.

There isn't any and that was my point.

Can someone else explain (via pm if necessary) what DFM's problem is because I'm totally at a loss to understand where they're coming from. I thought I'd clarified things with my last post but obviously not

I'm sure you will find something if you dig deep enough.

Call a truce at this point I think.  Back to the topic please.

I think it was just a misunderstanding.

Anyway I think we`re all agreed that they can be prosecuted in the UK and hence why `Whatsername` from CPS went over to Portugal when the review was turned into an investigation. She would have followed the Directives for CPS as I posted inititally.

candyfloss wrote:Call a truce at this point I think.  Back to the topic please.

I'm on topic aren't I? The topic being crimes committed abroad that can and can't be prosecuted in the UK.

And would still appreciate someone explaining what it is about what I wrote that is so difficult to understand, confusing or misleading so I can avoid upsetting people in future

Mimi wrote:Anyway I think we`re all agreed that they can be prosecuted in the UK and hence why `Whatsername` from CPS went over to Portugal when the review was turned into an investigation.

Yes they can be prosecuted in the UK, but prosecuted for what exactly? What are SY investigating? (Both rhetorical questions)

Having - me - some confidence in police investigations, that's indeed a rhetorical question ;-)

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info.  They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

The other thing to take note of IMO is the absence from the list of offences of any kind of reference to abduction or kidnap. Worth remembering next time you get involved in a conversation with someone who has only had the MSM view. E.g."I see what you're saying but British police have no jurisdiction to investigate an abduction in Portugal, yet they are investigating something. What on earth could it be then" and then gently push them in the direction of your preferred theory

Yes, the absense of abduction and kidnap also stands out like a sore thumb. Perhaps this was an exception that was already apparent to some and why 'abduction' was the first and loudest word screamed when the alarm was first raised?

Dee Coy wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:Sexual offenses and homicide stand out like a sour thumb ... IMO, of course.

Those were two of the main reasons I posted the website info.  They stuck out like a sore thumb for me too.

The other thing to take note of IMO is the absence from the list of offences of any kind of reference to abduction or kidnap. Worth remembering next time you get involved in a conversation with someone who has only had the MSM view. E.g."I see what you're saying but British police have no jurisdiction to investigate an abduction in Portugal, yet they are investigating something. What on earth could it be then" and then gently push them in the direction of your preferred theory

Yes, the absense of abduction and kidnap also stands out like a sore thumb. Perhaps this was an exception that was already apparent to some and why 'abduction' was the first and loudest word screamed when the alarm was first raised?

It begs the question "Was homework done before choosing holiday venue?"

I was going to comment that, depending on the charges, prosecution for whatever happened to Madeleine could take place in either Portugal or the UK but prosecution for the fraudulent fund would take place in the UK. Then I found this:

From the CPS website (link: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/fraud_act/ )

The Fraud Act 2006

Fraud by false representation (Section 2)
The defendant:

• made a false representation
  
  
• dishonestly
  
  
• knowing that the representation was or might be untrue or misleading
  
  
• with intent to make a gain for himself or another, to cause loss to another or to expose another to risk of loss.
  

The offence is entirely focused on the conduct of the defendant.

The McCanns were shown evidence by the PJ that indicated that Madeleine was dead so despite saying they believe that Madeleine is a live findable child, they know that this might not be true. Now I'm no legal eagle but if that is the case, it looks to me like they could be prosecuted for the fund irrespective of any action taken regarding Madeleine's fate.