An Entity of Type: Thing, from Named Graph: http://dbpedia.org, within Data Space: dbpedia.org

Attorney General v Oldridge [2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593 was an Irish Supreme Court case which examined "whether corresponding offenses to wire fraud existed in Irish law." The court found that although "wire fraud" did not exist in Irish law, the criminal activity was covered by existing fraud laws. The result of this decision was to broaden the use of fraud and specifically to rule that the charge of "conspiracy to defraud" is constitutional.

Property Value
dbo:abstract
  • Attorney General v Oldridge [2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593 was an Irish Supreme Court case which examined "whether corresponding offenses to wire fraud existed in Irish law." The court found that although "wire fraud" did not exist in Irish law, the criminal activity was covered by existing fraud laws. The result of this decision was to broaden the use of fraud and specifically to rule that the charge of "conspiracy to defraud" is constitutional. (en)
dbo:wikiPageExternalLink
dbo:wikiPageID
  • 61944033 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageLength
  • 8570 (xsd:nonNegativeInteger)
dbo:wikiPageRevisionID
  • 995762782 (xsd:integer)
dbo:wikiPageWikiLink
dbp:appealedFrom
  • 0001-11-10 (xsd:gMonthDay)
dbp:caption
dbp:concurrence
  • Denham J, McGuinness J, Geoghegan J, Fennelly J (en)
dbp:court
dbp:dateDecided
  • 2000-12-19 (xsd:date)
dbp:decisionBy
  • Keane C.J. (en)
dbp:fullName
  • The Attorney General, Applicant v Albert John Oldridge, Respondent [2000] IESC 29 (en)
dbp:italicTitle
  • yes (en)
dbp:judges
  • Keane C.J., Denham J., McGuinness J., Geoghegan J., Fennelly J. (en)
dbp:keywords
dbp:name
  • Attorney General v Oldridge (en)
dbp:numberOfJudges
  • 5 (xsd:integer)
dbp:opinions
  • There are offences in the jurisdiction corresponding with the offences in respect of which the respondent's extradition is sought, namely: Conspiracy to defraud, contrary to common law. (en)
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
dcterms:subject
rdfs:comment
  • Attorney General v Oldridge [2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593 was an Irish Supreme Court case which examined "whether corresponding offenses to wire fraud existed in Irish law." The court found that although "wire fraud" did not exist in Irish law, the criminal activity was covered by existing fraud laws. The result of this decision was to broaden the use of fraud and specifically to rule that the charge of "conspiracy to defraud" is constitutional. (en)
rdfs:label
  • Attorney General v Oldridge (en)
owl:sameAs
prov:wasDerivedFrom
foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf
is dbo:wikiPageWikiLink of
is foaf:primaryTopic of
Powered by OpenLink Virtuoso    This material is Open Knowledge     W3C Semantic Web Technology     This material is Open Knowledge    Valid XHTML + RDFa
This content was extracted from Wikipedia and is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License